MODELLING AND CONTROL OF HYSTERESIS AND VIBRATION IN

PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATOR

SHEHU MUHAMMAD AUWAL

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

 SHEHU MUHAMMAD AUWAL
16TH JULY, 1985

MODELLING AND CONTROL OF HYSTERESIS AND VIBRATION

IN PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATOR

2015/2016-I

A04865553 IR. DR. MOHD RIDZUAN BIN AHMAD

DECEMBER 2015 DECEMBER 2015

 “I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in my opinion this
project report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree
of Master of Engineering (Mechatronics and Automatic Control)”

Signature : ………………………………………………
Name of Supervisor : Ir. Dr Mohd Ridzuan Ahmad
Date : ........................................................................
 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF HYSTERESIS AND VIBRATION IN
PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATOR

SHEHU MUHAMMAD AUWAL

A project report submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Mechatronics and Automatic Control)

Faculty of Electrical Engineering

. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

DECEMBER 2015
 ii

I declare that this project report entitled “Modelling and Control of Hysteresis and
Vibration in Piezoelectric Actuator” is the result of my own research except as cited
in the references. The project report has not been accepted for any degree and is not
concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature : ………………………………..

Name : SHEHU MUHAMMAD AUWAL

Date : 30TH DECEMBER 2015

 iii

DEDICATION

I have dedicated this work to my family (especially my mother and my

father) and to Senator Engr. Dr Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso for their spiritual, moral
guidance and financial assistance. There are no words that can fully express my
love for them. May Allah accept their acts of worship and reward them in
abundance. Amin!
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise and thanks is to Allah, The most beneficent and The most merciful!
I would like to use this medium to express my sincere gratitude to my project
supervisor, in person of Ir. Dr. Mohd Ridzuan Bin Ahmad for his relentless
assistance and guidance. My sincere appreciation goes to Auwal Shehu Tijjani, Md.
Habibur Rahman and Bashir Bala Muhammad for their immeasurable assistance.
Without their help, the success of this work would have not been achieved. May
Allah reward them in abundance. Amin!

I am also grateful to the Kano State government for giving us the opportunity
to further our studies. May Allah give us the strength and courage to help others to
the best of our ability too. Amin!

My profound gratitude goes to the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia

(MOHE): grant no. 4F351 (FRGS), grant no. 4L640 (PRGS) and Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM): grant no. 02G46 (Flagship RG), grant no. 4J148 (R&D
Fund) for all the supports towards completing this project.
 v

ABSTRACT

Some advantages of piezoelectric actuators (PEAs) include: compact size,

low power consumption, low cost, high speed of response, larger blocking force,
ultra-high precision and high resolution. These advantages are the basis upon which
piezoelectric actuators (PEAs) are widely use many applications like modern car fuel
injectors, cell wall cutting, brain surgery, automated sperm injection systems,
nanorobotics manipulators and etc. Despite their advantages, hysteresis nonlinearity
in PEAs and residual vibration are some major drawbacks affecting the precision and
efficiency of piezoelectric actuators, and hence, they limit the maximum benefits can
be achieved by using PEA. In this project, finite element analysis model of PEA was
developed. A novel experimental process that can be used to capture hysteresis
nonlinearity in piezoelectric actuator was proposed. Based on Nelder Mead Simplex
search optimization method, parameters of the Bouc-Wen model for establishing
accurate hysteresis model were identified. Hysteresis minimization by using PID
based feedback control and Inverse Multiplicative techniques have been investigated.
The performances of the different minimization techniques for level of hysteresis
minimization were investigated based on integral absolute error (IAE). It was
observed that the performance of Inverse Multiplicative technique was better when
compared to the feedback minimization technique. Residual vibration minimization
based on PID, LQR pole placement and ZV-shaper techniques have been
investigated. IAE investigation showed that ZV-shaper result was better. Finally,
recommendations for work improvement have been proposed.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Beberapa kelebihan penggerak piezoelektrik (PEAs) termasuk: saiz yang

kompak, penggunaan kuasa yang rendah, kos rendah, kelajuan tinggi tindak balas,
daya menyekat lebih besar, ketepatan yang sangat tinggi dan resolusi tinggi.
Kelebihan ini adalah berasaskan mana penggerak piezoelektrik (PEAs) secara
meluas menggunakan banyak aplikasi seperti moden penyuntik bahan api kereta,
memotong dinding sel, pembedahan otak, sistem suntikan sperma automatik,
manipulator nanorobotik dan lain-lain. Walaupun kelebihan mereka, histerisis
ketaklelurusan dalam PEAs dan sisa getaran adalah beberapa kelemahan utama yang
mempengaruhi ketepatan dan kecekapan penggerak piezoelektrik, dan dengan itu,
mereka menghadkan manfaat maksimum boleh dicapai dengan menggunakan PEA.
Dalam projek ini, terbatas analisis model unsur PEA telah dibangunkan. Proses
eksperimen novel yang boleh digunakan untuk menangkap histerisis ketaklelurusan
dalam penggerak piezoelektrik telah dicadangkan. Berdasarkan Nelder Mead
Simplex kaedah pengoptimuman carian, parameter model Bouc-Wen untuk
mewujudkan model histerisis tepat telah dikenal pasti. Pengurangan histerisis dengan
menggunakan PID berasaskan kawalan reaksi dan teknik pendaraban songsang telah
disiasat. Prestasi dalam teknik pengurangan yang berbeza untuk tahap minimum
histerisis telah disiasat berdasarkan ralat mutlak penting (IAE). Diperhatikan bahawa
prestasi teknik darab songsang adalah lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan teknik
pengurangan reaksi. Pengurangan getaran sisa berdasarkan PID, LQR kawasan tiang
dan ZV-pembentuk teknik telah disiasat. Siasatan IAE menunjukkan bahawa
keputusan ZV-pembentuk adalah lebih baik. Akhir sekali, cadangan-cadangan untuk
penambahbaikan kerja telah dicadangkan.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.1.1 Hysteresis and vibration phenomena 4

1.1.2 Finite element analysis 6

1.2 Background of the research work 8

1.3 Statement of the problem 10

1.4 Aims and objectives of the project 10

1.5 Scope of the project 11

 viii

1.6 Significances and contributions of the study 12

1.7 Thesis outline 12

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 15

2.1 Chapter overview 15

2.2 A review on the concept of piezoelectricity and PEAs 15

2.2.1 Piezoelectric configuration modes 18

2.2.2 Multi-layer stack actuator 22

2.2.3 Piezoelectric bimorph beam 23

2.3 Review on past works 24

2.3.1 FEM/FEA based modelling review 25

2.3.2 PEA and hysteresis modelling, hysteresis and

residual vibration minimization techniques 31

2.4 Summary 39

3 METHODOLOGY 42

3.1 Methodology overview 42

3.2 The experimental procedure 44

3.2.1 Hysteretic actuator transfer function model 50

3.2.2 Hysteresis modelling based on Bouc-Wen model 56

3.2.3 Vibrating piezoelectric actuator transfer

function model 60

3.3 Finite element model development using ABAQUS 63

3.3.1 Finite element model validation 74

3.3.2 FEA model transfer function generation 77

 ix

3.3.3 FEA model validation 77

3.4 Control systems design 79

3.4.1 Hysteresis minimization control systems designs 79

3.4.2 Residual vibration minimization control

strategies 84

3.5 Summary 84

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 96

4.1 Chapter overview 96

4.1.1 Bouc-Wen hysteresis model simulated

data and experimental data 96

4.1.2 Hysteresis minimization results and discussions 98

4.1.3 Residual vibration control results and discussions 100

5 CONCLUSIONS 103

5.1 Conclusions 103

5.2 Recommendations for future work 104

REFERENCES 105
Appendices A-E 113-123
 x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Literature review summary for some selected works 13

1.2 Literature review summary for some selected works 14
2.1 Literature review summary for some selected
works 40
3.1 Input and output data collected from hysteresis
experiment 49
3.2 Model time response criteria 52
3.3 PEA parameters from transfer function model 56
3.4 Identified Bouc-Wen model parameters and piezoelectric
coefficient 59
3.5 Samples of input and output data for vibrating PEA 61
3.6 Time response criteria for the vibrating PEA 62
3.7 Summarized material properties for a z-poled
PZT-5H ceramic material 66
3.8 Comparison between theoretical and simulation results 75
3.9 y-axis displacement comparison along single direction 76
3.10 Summary of the control actions by PID controller gains 81
3.11 Optimum values for the PID controller tuning
parameters for hysteresis minimization. 82
3.12 Summary for ZV shaper design 91
3.13 PID controller gains for vibration control 95
 xi

4.1 Control strategies performance evaluation for degree

of hysteresis minimization based on IAE 101
4.2 Control systems performance evaluation for residual
vibration minimization based on IAE 104
6.1 Finite element model input and output data for transfer
function modelling using system identification technique 118
 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 (a) Piezoelectric sensor (b) piezoelectric actuator 2

1.2 Open loop and closed loop behaviour of PEA 5
1.3 General procedure for FEA 8
1.4 Polarization process. (a) original state (b) during
polarization (c) after polarization completed 9
2.1 Comparison between theoretical and experimental
behaviour between input voltage and output
displacement 20
2.2 Multi-layer stack actuator 23
2.3 Bimorph beam piezoelectric actuator 24
2.4 X. F. Wu et al. proposed modelling method 27
2.5 Piezoelectric actuator polarized in axis-2 29
2.6 (a) Cantilever beam with piezoelectric actuator model
(b) quick mount PEA 30
2.7 Finite element model mesh 30
2.8 Electrical equivalent circuit for piezoelectric transducer 32
2.9 Generalized Kelvin-Voigt Model 35
3.1 Project methodology overview 43
3.2 Platform for conducting the experiments 45
3.3 Arduino microcontroller based signal switching circuit 45
 xiii

3.4 Triangular form for increasing and decreasing input

voltage signal 46
3.5 Output displacement for increasing and decreasing
input voltage signal 46
3.6 Square wave input signal at 1 Hz 47
3.7 Output displacement for 1Hz squarewave input
voltage signal 47
3.8 Piezoelectric actuator tip displacement monitoring
using inverted microscope. (a) Tip at 125 V input.
(b) Tip at 0 V input 48
3.9 Displacement measurement using ImageJ software 50
3.10 A graphical plot of output displacement against
input voltage 50
3.11 Time domain data import wizard 51
3.12 Type of model to be estimated selection GUI 51
3.13 Generated transfer function models 52
3.14 Step response for the actuator model 53
3.15 Residual analysis (a) auto correlation (b) cross correlation 54
3.16 Model order reduction validation based on time
response criteria 56
3.17 Bouc-Wen hysteresis model simulation block diagram 57
3.18 Complete hysteresis model for the PEA 57
3.19 Parameters trajectories (a) alpha (b) beta (c) gamma
(d) piezoelectric coefficient 60
3.20 Step response for vibrating PEA 62
3.21 Vibrating PEA residual analysis (a) autocorrelation
(b) cross correlation 63
3.22 (a) Two dimensional to (b) three-dimensional
FE model development 64
3.23 Layer 1 meshed with C3D8E element type mesh 65
3.24 Section module main GUI 67
 xiv

3.25 Section assignment main GUI 68

3.26 Layer-1 orientation definition 69
3.27 (a) Step creation user interface (b) Output variables request 70
3.28 Encastre boundary condition applied 71
3.29 Voltage ground boundary condition 71
3.30 Electric potential boundary condition creation 72
3.31 Multilayer piezoelectric actuator assembly 73
3.32 Meshed multilayer piezoelectric actuator FE model 74
3.33 FEA model residual analysis (a) autocorrelation
(b) cross correlation 78
3.34 FEA model step response for vibrating PEA 78
3.35 Simplified block diagram for parallel form PID control 80
3.36 Hysteresis minimization based on optimized PID
control structure 82
3.37 Hysteresis minimization by Inverse Multiplicative
technique block diagram 83
3.38 LQR based vibration control structure with
IAE measurement capability 86
3.39 ZV-shaping technique 87
3.40 Two impulses response 87
3.41 ZV input shaper control structure with IAE
measurement unit 92
3.42 PID based vibration control simulink model 96
4.1 A graphical comparison between measured data and
simulated data obtained from identified Bouc-Wen
hysteresis model. 98
4.2 Hysteresis minimization result based on optimized
PID controller 100
4.3 Hysteresis minimization result based on Inverse
Multiplicative technique 100
4.4 Reference tracking errors comparison for the two
 xv

control techniques 102

4.5 LQR, PID and pole placement responses 103
4.6 ZV input shaper response 104
 xvi

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

2D - Two Directional
3D - Three Directional
BC - Boundary Condition
D - Electric Displacement
DOF - Degree Of Freedom
E - Electric Field
FE - Finite Element
FEA - Finite Element Analysis
FEM - Finite Element Model
GND - Voltage Ground
GUI - Graphical User Interface
IAE - Integral Absolute Error
Kd - Derivative gain
Ki - Integral gain
Kp - Proportional gain
LQR - Linear Quadratic Regulator
MCU - Microcontroller
MLA - Multilayer Actuator
PEA - Piezoelectric Actuator
PES - Piezoelectric Sensor
PID - Proportional Integral Derivative
PV - Process Variable
 xvii

PZT - Lead Zirconate Titanate

S - Strain
SP - Set-point
T - Stress
ZV - Zero Vibration
 xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A List of Publications 113

B Combined LQR, PID and Pole Placement Vibration

Model 114

C C programming Code for Arduino Microcontroller 115

D FE Model Input and Output Data 116

E Vibration Model Input and Output Experimental Data 117

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The term piezoelectricity is derived from the root word “piezein” meaning
“pressure”. Hence, piezoelectricity originally means “pressure electricity” [1,2]. It is
a well known process that was first discovered by the Curie brothers in the year
1880 [3]. Their observation was that when pressure was applied to some materials,
an electrical potential (or charge) was developed. It was discovered later that when
an electrical potential is applied to these materials motion (e.g. contraction or
elongation) was observed [2,4-6]. To mention only few, materials that exhibit
piezoelectric property include ceramic materials such as lead zirconate titanate
(PZT), barium titanate (BaTiO2) [2,6] and other monocrystalline materials like
quartz, tourmaline, Rochelle salt, etc. Ceramic piezoelectric materials offer higher
piezoelectric effect when as compared to that exhibited by monocrystalline materials
[7]. Among the several piezoelectric materials that we have, the most commonly
used material is PZT [2,7,8].

Piezoelectric process describes a link between mechanical properties (like

stress and strain) to electrical properties (e.g. electrical displacement and electric
potential) [4]. Figure 1.1a shows the representation of piezoelectric actuator and
Figure 1.1(b) shows the representation of piezoelectric sensor. When configured as a
 2

Figure ‎1.1 (a) Piezoelectric sensor (b) piezoelectric actuator

sensor mode, electricity is generated, this process is known as direct-effect

[1]. Conversely, when electricity is applied to the piezoelectric material, direct
motion is generated [4], this is known as inverse-effect. Piezoelectric actuators
(PEAs) have numerous important and have proven to be useful in those applications
where precise positioning is required[9].

Piezoelectric actuators (PEAs) have several advantages over classical

electromechanical actuators. Some of the advantages are highlighted below:

i. High precision: Piezoelectric actuators have proven to be useful in

applications requiring precise positioning [7,9-12].
ii. Unlimited resolution: They have unlimited resolution and they can produce
very fine changes in position down to sub-nanometer range [7,10-12].
iii. Large force generation: They have the capability to deliver force of several
tens of thousands Newton [7,10-12].
iv. Rapid response: When compared to classical actuators piezoelectric
actuators provide fast response. They have time constants of microsecond and
high acceleration [7,10-12].
 3

v. No magnetic field: Piezoelectric actuators are well suited for applications

having zero tolerance to magnetic fields [7].
vi. Low power consumption: They only absorb energy when they are in
operation. This implies that they do not consume electric power for static
operations like holding heavy loads [7,10].
vii. No wear and tear: Piezoelectric actuators have no moving gears and rotating
shafts. PI Ceramics conducted an endurance test on piezoelectric actuators
and reported that no change was observed in terms of performance after many
billion cycles of operation [7,10].
viii. Cryogenic temperature operation: they can work well in low temperatures
with no significant change in performance specification [7].
ix. Small size: Piezoelectric actuators have more compact sizes when compared
to several other classical electromechanical actuators [10-12].
x. Thermal expansion: They have negligible thermal expansion during
operation [11].

As a result of these advantages, PEAs are widely applied in high precision

micro/nano manipulators [13-16], in car fuel injectors, cell wall cutting [17,18], in
automated sperm injection [19], in active vibration control [20-23] etc. However,
despite the numerous advantages exhibited by PEAs, their drawbacks are obvious.
These drawback can result in positioning inaccuracies and can even affect the PEA
system's instability [19,24,25]. The major issues are:

i. Hysteresis problem: As a result of hysteresis property, PEAs will produce

10-15% error of full range when operating in open-loop system. The error is
higher (about 35%) when the input signal frequency is high [10]. The system
is observed to have a different output (non-linearity) with the same input
applied [6,11,12].
ii. Creeping problem: A fall in PEA's amplitude with time at constant input
signal [6].
 4

iii. Residual vibration problem: This is brought about by PEA's mechanical

properties like stiffness, inertia and damping [6]. As a results of this, the
actuator's tip vibrates about the desired position before reaching steady state.

Creeping problem can be disregarded in many cases where durations lasting

only for short time are involved. Vibration problem can be minimized through the
design of damping controller [10]. Hysteresis problem is the major challenge in using
piezoelectric actuators. It can result in unacceptable positioning inaccuracies and can
also affect the system's stability [19,24,25].

1.1.1 Hysteresis and vibration phenomena

The term "hysteresis" generally (derived from Greek word "hysteresis" -

delay, lag) means that value describing some physical processes is not clearly
dependent on external parameter and antecedent history of that value must be taken
into account [26]. It brings about nonlinear dependence of a system on the current
input in addition to dependence on the previous input [27]. The term was defined by
J. A Ewing as: "when there are two quantities M and N such that cyclic variations of
N causes cyclic variations of M, then if changes of M lag behind those of N, we may
say that there is hysteresis in the relation of M to N" [26].

Piezoelectric actuators are applied in ultra-precision positioning systems due

to their high positioning accuracy [28]. However, since piezoelectric materials are
ferroelectric, piezoelectric actuators show nonlinear hysteresis behaviour when an
electric field is applied [29]. Electric field (voltage)-strain (displacement) is being
mostly concerned in micro-nanopositioning and hysteresis exists in this relationship
[27]. The presence of hysteresis limits the operational accuracy of PEAs [28].
 5

Figure 1.2 shows the open loop and closed loop input-output behaviour of
piezoelectric actuator. The open loop behaviour is as a result of hysteresis effect.

Vibration is a repetitive motion that occurs after a time interval with respect
to a point of reference. Vibration theory deals with the study of vibratory or
oscillatory bodies and the forces that are associated with them. The elementary parts
of a vibrating body are [30]:
 Potential energy storage means (spring or elasticity)
 Kinetic energy storage means (inertia or mass)
 A gradual energy damping means (damper)

The forces that act on a vibrating body are [30]:

 Restoring force
 Damping force
 Disturbing force

Voltage, V

Figure 1.2 Open loop and closed loop behaviour of piezoelectric actuator
 6

1.1.2 Finite element analysis

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a numerical method that is used for solving
multi-physics problems [31]. The approach involves dividing the continuous
geometry of the system into finite number of simpler units that are called elements.
These elements are connected together at nodal points. Unlike in analytical method
where the entire system solution is solved in one operation, FEA involves defining
the equations for every element and these equations are solved simultaneously to
obtain a complete system solution [32]. This is to say that FEA is an approximation
method.

Areas where FEA can be applied include [31]:

i. Electrical analysis e.g. Piezoelectric actuator, electrical signal
propagation etc.
ii. Thermal analysis e.g. heat transfer, thermal stress brake disc etc.
iii. Structural analysis e.g. bridge, cantilever etc.

1.1.2.1 Importance of FEA

For complex structure, we need to solve sets of partial differential equations

for the system which cannot be easily done by analytical approach. In such
situations, numerical solution method FEA can offer an approximate solution [31].
This is to say that the technique is mainly employed for complex or large-scale
structures where solution cannot be easily obtained analytically [32].
 7

1.1.2.2 FEA procedures

The continuous system is discretized into smaller finite units called elements.
The smaller units can be solved more easily than the continuous whole system by
solving the partial differential equations for the elements. The solutions for the
equations representing the whole system will give us the approximate solution for the
continuous system. The accuracy of the result increases as the number of elements is
increased [31]. Figure 1.3 shows the general procedure involved in FEA.

Pre-processing

Physical model FEA model

Describe the problem
Discretize/mesh the
system, define material
properties, apply
boundary conditions

Results FEA theory

Obtain, visualize and Choose approximate
explain the results functions, formulate
linear equations, and
solve equations

Post-processing Processing
Figure 1.3 General procedure for FEA
 8

1.2 Background of the research work

Piezoelectricity is the fundamental principle that is behind the operation of

piezoelectric actuator. Electro-mechanical processes are involved and the principle
represents the conversion of energy (electrical and mechanical). The principle relates
the elongation/compression of piezoelectric material. Applying an electric field will
result in the electric dipoles in the material orienting themselves along the direction
of the field and hence the crystal will expand along the same direction [10].

Lead zirconate titanate (pb(Zr,Ti)O3 commonly called PZT is the most

common crystal material used. Before a material can be used as a piezoelectric
material, the piezoelectric property has to be originated (or improved). This is done
by applying a high DC voltage across the material (mostly along its length), as a
result, the randomly electric dipoles in the material will align themselves along the
material in the direction of the applied polarization field. After removing the field, it
will be discovered that these dipoles do not completely return to the non-polarized
state. The material will have what is termed remnant polarization [10]. Polarization
process is demonstrated in Figure 1.4.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1.4 Polarization process. (a) original state (b) during polarization (c) after
polarization completed
 9

Hysteresis

Bouc-
Wen
k m
u
b k
u
b

Figure 1.5 1-DOF Piezoelectric actuator model

As shown in Figure 1.5, the electromechanical actuator is analogous to the

mass-spring-damper system, where m is the mass of the actuator, b is the actuator's
damping coefficient, k is the actuator stiffness constant. It is assumed that the
actuator is fixed at one end and free to move at the other end along its longitudinal
axis. When a mass is applied to the system it extends. In similarity, when a potential
difference, u is applied between the terminals of the actuator it also extends by .
The actuator can be referred to as a voltage-spring system.

For a one degree-of-freedom (1-DOF) PEA, the dynamic equation of motion

is given by Eq. 1.1 [33]. The equation describes an ideal system with no hysteretic
behaviour. If we take into account the actuator's hysteresis nonlinearity, the PEA
equation of motion is represented by Eq. 1.2, where de and h(t) are piezoelectric
coefficient and hysteresis function respectively

m  b  k  u (1.1)

m  b  k  k (deu  h(t )) (1.2)

 10

1.3 Statement of the problem

Despite the numerous advantages of PEAs, hysteresis nonlinearity property

and residual vibration result in unacceptable inaccuracies in precision positioning
applications like brain surgery, cell wall cutting etc. Furthermore, hysteresis
nonlinearity may even affect the stability of the system. Control system designs is
one way to tackle the aforementioned issues affecting the system. However, their
effective implementations depends largely on how accurate the PEA system property
or behaviour is modelled.

1.4 Aims and objectives of the project

The major aims of the project are to improve the PEA system's positioning
accuracy and efficiency. In order to achieve these aims, we want to achieve the
following objectives:

1. To obtain the transfer function of a piezoelectric actuator.

2. To minimize hysteresis in the piezoelectric actuator.
3. To minimize the PEA residual vibration.
 11

1.5 Scope of the project

Experimental works and finite element analysis (using ABAQUS 6.14) were
conducted for the purpose of collecting input and output transient data. System
identification techniques were employed for the purpose of establishing transfer
function models of the piezoelectric actuator. The FEA data transfer function
modelling was conducted in four steps; FE modelling and validation, data
preparation based on FEA, transfer function generation based on system
identification and model validation. From transient data collected from experiments,
vibration model and hysteresis model for the PEA were established based on
identified optimum parameters of Bouc-Wen hysteresis model.

Hysteresis minimization was investigated based on feedback control system

and open-loop technique for the purpose of comparison. Residual vibration was
minimized based on proportional integral and derivative (PID) controller, pole
placement, linear quadratic regulator (LQR), pole placement and zero vibration (ZV)
shaper control strategies. The degrees of residual vibration removal and hysteresis
minimization using the various techniques were investigated based on integral
absolute error (IAE).

1.6 Significances and contributions of the study

The major contributions of this project are as follow:

i. Accurate modelling of the piezoelectric actuator based on a novel data

collection technique.
 12

ii. Hysteresis behaviour modelling based Bouc-Wen model.

iii. System linearity, accuracy and precision improvements by
minimizing hysteresis residual vibration.

1.7 Thesis outline

The thesis is organised in five chapters. In chapter one, introduction, general

overview, problem definition, objectives and scope of work are presented. In chapter
two, a review on theoretical background and similar works by researchers are
presented. Chapter three reports the methodology and description of each procedure
to be followed in order to solve the problem in view. In chapter four, results and
discussion were presented while conclusions and future work recommendations are
presented in chapter five. The project was conducted in two phases. The list of
activities for phase 1 and phase 2 based on Gantt chart are given Table 1.1 and Table
1.2 respectively.
 Table 1.1: Phase 1 activities Gantt chart

PROJECT ACTIVITY W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13

Month MAR MAR MAR MAR APR APR APR APR MAY MAY MAY MAY JUN
Learning ABAQUS and Modelling
Piezoelectricity in ABAQUS
Research for Literature Review
Finite Element Modelling of Piezoelectric
Actuator Using ABAQUS
Project Chapter 1 Writing
Acquisition and Learning How to Use
Signal Processing for ABAQUS
Literature Review (Chapter 2) Writing
Finite Element Model Validation
Project Methodology Writing and
Presentation
Project Synopsis Submission to Faculty
(Form RP1-1)
Submission of Seminar Material to
Faculty
Seminar & Form RP1-2 Submission
Project Report & Form RP1-3 Submission
to Supervisor
 Table 1.2: Phase 2 activities Gantt chart

PROJECT ACTIVITY W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14

Month SEP SEP SEP SEP OCT OCT OCT OCT NOV NOV NOV NOV DEC

Research for work on controllers design

Project proposal

Controllers Design

Project Synopsis submission

Thesis writing

Preparation for Seminar Material

Submission of Seminar Material to Faculty

Project-2 Seminar Presentation and RP2-2
submission
Two-pages Weekly Report Submission to
Supervisor
Thesis draft submission and form RP2-3
submission
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Chapter overview

At this point, literature review is presented. The literature review divided into
three phases. In the first phase, a review on theoretical background necessary for well
established understanding of the concept of piezoelectricity is presented. In the
second phase, a review on past work is presented. This includes a review on
piezoelectric actuator modelling based on finite element analysis, hysteresis
modelling, hysteresis compensation and residual vibration control are presented. Last
phase of the review work presents a summary of past related works.

2.2 A review on the concept of piezoelectricity and PEAs

Piezoelectricity is a linear phenomenon that links material mechanical

properties like strain (S) and stress (T) to electrical properties like electric
displacement (D) and electrical field (E) in the material. When an electrical field is
applied, piezoelectric materials are subjected to longitudinal transverse and shear
deformations when they are poled [4,34]. Jarolslaw Latalski [35] reported that
implementing piezoelectric transducers (actuators and sensors) requires information
 16

regarding how the transducers behave when they are under electrical and mechanical
loads in addition to information about their strength data. Y. Bernard [4] and B. J.
Sung et al. [36] reported that the linear equations of piezoelectricity when
considering the strain and the electrical field as independent variables are given by
Eq. 2.1 and Eq. 2.2. These equations are in agreement with the ANSI/IEEE 176
standard of piezoelectricity [37]:

S i  sij T j  d ji E j
E t
(2.1)

D j  d ij Ti   Tjk Ek (2.2)

According to [34], Eq. 2.1 and Eq. 2.2 are referred to as the strain formulation
while Jarolslaw Latalski [35] reported that the sets of Eq. 2.1 and Eq. 2.2 are known
as the 'displacement-based' formulation. The author reported that the equations are
the standard equations for describing piezoelectricity and added that the equations
are based on the assumption that the sum of mechanical-induced strain and
electrically-caused strain are what that produce the total strain in the transducer.
Sirohi and Inderjit in [38] reported, the piezoelectric stress formulation equations are
given by Eq. 2.3 and Eq. 2.4 while Jarolslaw Latalski [35] regarded these equations
as the 'force-based' formulation. Author in [26] stated that Eq. 2.3 represents the
inverse piezoelectric effect while Eq. 2.4 represents direct piezoelectricity and that
the two sets of Eq. 2.3 and Eq. 2.4 are referred to as the 'force-based formulation'.

Ti  Cij S j  e tji E j (2.3)

D j  eij S i   Sjk E K (2.4)

 17

Where dij is a 3x6 strain coefficients matrix (m/Volt or Columb/N), Sij is a 6x6

compliance matrix (m2/N), εjk is a 3x3 dielectric permittivity matrix (Farad/m), Ek is

a 3x1 electric field vector (Volt/m), Si is a 6x1 strain vector (dimensionless), Ti is a

6x1 stress vector (N/m2) and Dj is a 3x1 electric displacement vector (Coulumb/m2)
[38].

The strain coefficients matrix has only 5 non-zero elements when calculated in
the frame with third direction as the poling direction. The element d33 is the
coefficient that is responsible for longitudinal displacement, while coefficient d31 =
d32 account for transverse displacements and coefficient d15 = d24 produce shear
strain only when the applied potential is orthogonal to poling axis-3. The two
transverse displacement occur simultaneously [4,38]. The coefficients d31 and d32
have negative values while d33 coefficient has positive value. We can see that, when
d33 produces extension motion in axis-3, the two coefficients d31 and d32 produce
contraction in axis-1 and axis-2 respectively and vice versa. Clinton Y. K. Chee et al.
[34] reported that, provided that the elastic compliance matrix is invertible, its
inverse will give elastic stiffness and vice versa. Expressing equations Eq. 2.1 and
Eq. 2.2 in 3-D systems gives Eq. 2.5. The authors in [35] further reported that, for
those materials that exhibit 4 mm crystalline class or 6 mm crystalline class (e.g.
PZT, barium titanate-BaTiO3), Eq. 2.5 reported by Clinton Y. K. Chee et al. in [34]
is well simplified to Eq. 2.6. The simplification has to do with the symmetry of
electric, electro-mechanical and elastic properties.
 18

 S1   s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 d11 d 21 d 31  T1 

S   s  
 2   21 s 22 s 23 s 24 s 25 s 26 d12 d 22 d 32  T2 
 S 3   s31 s32 s33 s34 s35 s36 d13 d 23 d 33  T3 
    
 S 4   s 41 s 42 s 43 s 44 s 45 s 46 d14 d 24 d 34  T4 
 S 5    s51 s52 s53 s54 s55 s56 d15 d 25 d 35  T5  (2.5)
  
 S 6   s 61 s 62 s 63 s 64 s 65 s 66 d16 d 26 d 36  T6 
D   d d12 d13 d14 d15 d16  11  12
 
 13  E1 
 1   11
 D2   d 21 d 22 d 23 d 24 d 25 d 26  21  22  23  E 2 
 D   d  31  32
 
 33  E3 
 3   31 d 32 d 33 d 34 d 35 d 36

 S1   s11 s11 s11 0 0 0 0 0 d 31  T1 

S   s  
 2   21 s 22 s 23 0 0 0 0 0 d 32  T2 
 S 3   s31 s32 s33 0 0 0 0 0 d 33  T3 
    
 S4   0 0 0 s 44 0 0 0 d 24 0  T4 

 S5   0 0 0 0 s55 0 d15 0 0  T5  (2.6)
  
 S6   0 0 0 0 0 s66 0 0 0  T6 
D    
0 0 0 0 d15 0  11 0 0  E1 
 1 
 D2   0 0 0 d 24 0 0 0  22 0  E2 
 D   d  
 33  E3 
 3   31 d 32 d 33 0 0 0 0 0

Equation 2.6 is in accordance to ANSI IEEE 176 standards under the

assumption that the piezoelectric material is poled along axis 3 (or Z-axis) and also
that the material is assumed to be transversely isotropic material [35].

2.2.1 Piezoelectric configuration modes

Piezoelectric coupling matrices have few non-zero elements as a result of

crystal material symmetry. The available coupling modes (non-zero coefficients in
 19

the coupling matrix) dictates the design of sensing and actuation devices. Eq. 2.7
describes actuator mode while Eq. 2.8 describes sensor mode [35,39].

Actuator mode:

 S1   s11 s12 s13 0 0 0 T1   0 0 d 31 

S   s 
0 T2   0
 
 2   12 s 22 s 23 0 0 0 d 31 
 E1 
 S 3   s13 s 23 s33 0 0 0 T3   0 0 d 33  
       E 2  (2.7)
S 4   0 0 0 s 44 0 0 T4   0 d15 0  
S 5   0 0 T5   d15 0  
E3
0 0 0 s55 0
    
S 6   0 0 0 0 0 s66 T6   0 0 0 

Sensor mode:

 S1  T1 
S  T 
 2  0 0 0 0 d15 0  2    11 0 0  E1 
 S 3   T3    
  0 0 0 d15 0 0     0  22 0  E 2  (2.8)
S 4   d T
0  4   0 0  33  E3 
 S 5   31
d 31 d 33 0 0
T5 
   
S 6  T6 

For the case of actuator, the applied stress in this case is zero. Hence, Eq. 2.1
reduces to Eq. 2.9 as reported by [5]. The matrix form given by Eq. 2.7 reduces to
the form given by Eq. 2.10.

S i  d ji E j
t
(2.9)
 20

 0 0 d 31 
 
 0 0 d 32 
 0  E1 
0 d 33  
Si    E 2  (2.10)
 0 d 24 0  
d 0 0  
E3
 15
 0 0 
 0

The relationship between the applied electric field and the produced strain is
linear as stated by Eq. 2.9 at lower electric fields [5]. This theoretical linearity
between the actuator driving voltage and the output deformation can be observed in
the work done by Xiaoning Jiang et al. [40]. Figure 2.1 is an input voltage against
actuator displacement plot comparing theoretical data and experimental data curves
as reported by [5]. At higher electric fields, hysteresis problem occurs due to
polarization reorientation when the electric field strength is increased. According to
Robert K. Lenzen et. al. [5], hysteresis are mostly noticed when the applied electric
field exceeds about 100 V/mm.

Figure 2.1 Comparison between theoretical and experimental behaviour between

input voltage and output displacement [5].
 21

As it has been pointed out earlier under this section, the strain constants, dij
(m/Volt) are responsible for producing motion in their respective directions. They
define the mechanical motion production capability of the piezoelectric material.
These constants provide us with the picture of how much the material will
extend/contract in the jth direction given an applied potential in ith direction [5]. The
commercially available active piezoelectric devices uses the d33-effect (meaning the
devices produces mechanical deformation in the direction of the applied voltage or
poling direction) or the d31-effect (meaning that the device produces deformation in
direction perpendicular to poling direction [35].

However, Y. Bernard, J.-L et al. [4] reported that, in order for some tens of
nanometre displacements to be produced, the applied potential must be high enough
(hundreds to thousands of volts). The challenge faced however is that, the material
has an upper voltage limit set forth by the disruptive field of the material. On the
other hand, when the applied voltage is below a lower setting of the material,
polarization reversals occur [4,8].

PEAs that are made from a single layer of piezoelectric material are referred
to as bulk actuators. Bulk-type actuators when sandwiched in-between two electrodes
can be used directly as PEAs. However, due to the limitations of bulk-type actuators
outlined in the preceding paragraph, manufacturers employ many technique to
achieve higher strokes without exceeding the material maximum voltage limit [4].
One of the techniques employed by manufacturers is multi-layer stacking. Multi-
layer stack technique is discussed below.
 22

2.2.2 Multi-layer stack actuator

As it was pointed out in the previous section, bulk-type actuators applications

have constrained limitations particularly with regards to the driving voltage needed
to produce high stroke. However, the modern day world demand is for cheaper, safer
and easy to get power supply. For this reason, multi-layer actuator (MLA) design
comes into play. Thin layers or piezoelectric materials are physically connected and
electrically connected in parallel [1,41]. This technique has the advantages of
lowering the driving voltage, fast response and high actuation force [1].

Figure 2.2 shows MLA where the electrodes are spaced h metres apart.
Assuming the number of layers along the length of the MLA is n and the applied
voltage is V, the electric field, E, between each layer is given by Eq. 2.11. Equation
2.9 described the strain in a single layer (bulk-type) actuator. Using equation Eq. 2.9,
the strain in each layer is then given by Eq. 2.12. Ignoring the electrodes thickness,
the total thickness of the actuator is n x h. The net strain produced by the actuator is
then given by Eq. 2.12 while the net displacement, Δ(n x d), given by Eq. 2.13 [41].

V
E (2.11)
h

h V 
Si   ndij   (2.12)
h h

V 
h  ndij  h  d ij nV (2.13)
h

V 
h3  nd33  h3  d 33nV (2.14)
h
 23

Piezoelectric
Electrodes ceramic layers

Piezoel
Electr
ectric ceramic
Electrodes
ode pins
h
layers
h Electr
V ode pins

Figure 2.2 Multi-layer stack actuatorV

Equation 2.13 highlights to us that the MLA displacement along the j-th
direction is proportional to the number of stacked layers, n, the applied potential in
the i-th direction and the dij coefficient of the piezoelectric material [41]. For a
material poled in the 3-direction, having voltage, V, applied across the poling
direction, the resultant stroke (or displacement) was given by Eq. 2.14.

2.2.3 Piezoelectric bimorph beam

Piezoelectric bimorph is a beam consisting of two piezoelectric layers poled

in opposite directions to one another stacked together in a way to obtain a bending
actuation. The bimorph device can be used for micro-nano positioning or strain
sensing [30,33]. Figure 2.3 shows a diagram of typical bimorph. The layers are
configured to have opposite polarization while same potential is applied, or, the
 24

Figure 2.3 Bimorph beam piezoelectric actuator

polarization being the same while electric field opposite [42]. One layer contracts as
the other extends and the net effect is a bending motion.

As reported by [42], the formula for the bimorph bean bending motion, u, in a
place, x, assuming linearity in the variation of electric field through the beam
thickness, is given by Eq. 2.15,

e31U 2
u x (2.15)
Eh2

where e31 is piezoelectric matrix component, U is applied voltage, h being the

bimorph beam thickness and E represent Young's modulus.

2.3 Review on past works

In this section, a review on piezoelectric actuators modelling, hysteresis

modelling, hysteresis compensation and residual vibration minimization techniques
 25

are presented. Some researchers used electrical equivalent circuit to model the PEA,
some model the PEA as a spring-mass-damper system while others uses hysteresis
and creep to model the PEA. Finite element method/analysis (FEM/FEA) technique
has been utilized by many authors to model, simulate and analyse the PEAs. In this
research work, we categorise the various methods into three categories:

i. Finite Element Method/Analysis (FEM/FEA) based modelling

ii. Equivalent circuit based modelling
iii. Physics based modelling

2.3.1 FEM/FEA based modelling review

Control systems design that employs PEAs and piezoelectric sensors (PESs)
needs an accurate knowledge about the relationship between inputs and outputs (or
transfer function, TF,) of the system. From numerical approach, these relationships
are not easy to be determined [43].

X. F. Wu et al. [32] reported that, TF model of a system can be established by

means of parameter identification based on FEA. Among the basic modelling
techniques reported by the authors is finite element modelling (FEM). Jaroslaw
Latalski [35] reported that, the advantage of FEM is the possibility of modelling
complex structures by disintegrating it into simpler units called elements. In a similar
statement, X. F. Wu et al. [32] also reported that continuous system is simplified into
a discrete model having finite number of degrees of freedom (DOF). Software tools
like ABAQUS, ANSYS, ATILA and MSC.NASTRAN can be used among others to
conduct dynamic analysis based on FEM.
 26

X. F. Wu et al. [32] also reported that, TF model can be used in control

systems but the FEA results obtained cannot be used directly in control systems. The
authors lamented that, the TF coefficients can be acquired by conducting ground-
tests only. The authors therefore propose a new approach to establish model for
control systems by combining FEA and TF. According to these authors, the method
can be carried out in both time domain and frequency domains.

The authors in the previous paragraph lamented that the frequency domain
modelling involves four steps, these are:

I. Finite element modelling and validation

II. Data preparation by frequency analysis
III. Transfer function parameter identification in frequency domain and
IV. Validation of the TF model

Similarly, the time domain modelling is analogous to the frequency domain

approach. The steps involved are:
I. Finite element modelling and validation
II. Data preparation by transient analysis
III. Transfer function parameter identification in time domain and
IV. Validation of the TF model.

X. F. Wu et al. [32] proposed modelling method is given by the flowchart

given by Figure 2.4.
 27

Complicated
Structure

Finite Element Model

Mode Analysis

Validation using Is FE model No

Test data accurate?

Yes

Time- Frequency-
domain Transient Analysis Frequency Analysis domain
excitation excitation

Time-domain Frequency-domain
Response Data Response Data

Time-domain Frequency-domain
Parameter Parameter
Identification Identification

Modify Modify
TF
Transfer Function Transfer Function TF
model modelling modelling model

Frequency- Time-domain
domain validation validation

No Is TF model Is TF model No
accurate? accurate?

Yes Yes

Transfer Function
model

Figure 2.4 X. F. Wu et al. proposed modelling method

 28

The flowchart shown in Figure 2.4 consists of two sections. The upper section
is FEA while the lower section is parameter identification section. FE model of the
system is established in the FEA section and validation of the FE model is done
mathematically in order to investigate the model accuracy. In the lower section,
parameter identification techniques are used to come up with the TF model based on
response data obtained previously during FEA.

In the next coming sections, some FEM based works by some researchers are
being itemized.

M. Habibur Rahman et al. [44] used lead zirconate titanate (PZT)

piezoelectric actuator to provide the necessary micro-level displacement for cell wall
cutting operation using a nanoneedle. The researchers used commercial FE software
ABAQUS version 6.10 to develop the FE model of the PEA and simulations. The
physical dimension for the PEA finite element model was 4 mm x 3 mm. The PZT
material properties that were used by the researchers include elastic property,
piezoelectric constants and dielectric property. It can be seen from Figure 2.5 that the
researchers in [44] configure the actuator for longitudinal displacement along Y-axis
(or 2-direction). As reported by the authors, displacements other than along Y-
direction were kept static. This is to say that FE model of the PEA can only have
translational motion along Y-direction. The authors of the paper used equations
derived from IEEE standard of piezoelectricity [37].
 29

Figure 2.5 Piezoelectric actuator polarized in axis-2 [44]

M. H. Rahma et. al. [44] modelled the piezoelectric actuator in d33-mode but
with direction-2 (or y-axis) as both the polarization and excitation axis. This is also
clearly visible based on the PZT material properties that they use. With regards to the
relationship between the input and output, a linear relationship was observed.

A powerful commercially available FE software ABAQUS was used by

Hoffman et. al. [45] to model piezoelectric actuator which is bolt-mounted on the
upper side of a cantilever beam. The system considered by Hoffman et. al. [45] is
given by Figure 2.6a. The piezoelectric actuator the authors utilized is known as
quick mount piezoelectric actuator (Figure 2.6b).

The FEM model simulations were performed in ABAQUS. The piezoelectric

actuator was modelled having two layers as C3D8R elements (8-nodes elements of
"piezoelectric" type) (see Figure 2.7) with an additional electrical degree of freedom
(DOF). Tie constraint was utilised in joining the two piezoelectric elements together.
For the bolt simulation, the authors used load to simulate the bolting effect.
 30

Quick
mount PEA

(a) (b)

Figure 2.6 (a)Cantilever beam with piezoelectric actuator model (b)quick mount
PEA

Piezoelectric actuator layers

Figure 2.7 Finite Element Model mesh

The major aim Hoffman et. al. [45] performed simulation was to demonstrate
the effect of imperfect piezo-actuator/beam coupling imperfection on static beam
deflection and shear stresses.
 31

2.3.2 PEA and hysteresis modelling, hysteresis and residual vibration

minimization techniques

Under this section, various techniques for modelling hysteretic piezoelectric

actuator and the existing techniques for hysteresis and residual vibration
minimizations are investigated.

2.3.2.1 PEA Equivalent circuit based modelling

Staworko and Tadeusz et. al. [3] reported that piezoelectric transducer model
can be obtained from phenomena that was first observed by the Curie brothers (i.e.
potential difference is proportional to strain of a piezoelectric material,

U  kx (2.16)

where U -voltage in (V), k -piezoelectric constant in (V/m) and x -displacement in

(m).

The authors in [3] made it clear that, the net some of the received and
delivered electrical and mechanical energy is zero (see Eq. 2.17), hence Eq. 2.17
gives Eq. 2.18. Considering Eq. 2.16, we obtained Eq. 2.19,

Uq  Fx  0 (2.17)
 32

 (Uq)
F (2.18)
x

F  kq (2.19)

where F -force in (N), and q -electrical charge in (C).

For harmonic excitations Eq. 2.16 and Eq. 2.19 become Eq. 2.20 and Eq. 2.21
respectively.

k
U V (2.20)
j

k
F I (2.21)
j

If we consider the transducer as a T-shape four terminal, it can be described

by Eq. 2.22.

U   Z eo  Z em   I 
 F   Z  Z m o  V 
(2.22)
   em

where Zeo is electrical impedance in (V/A), Zem is electrical-mechanical coupling

impedance in (VS/m) and Zmo is mechanical impedance in (Kg/S).

Figure 2.8 shows the electrical equivalent circuit model for piezoelectric
transducer [3].
 33

Figure 2.8 Electrical equivalent circuit for piezoelectric transducer

2.3.2.2 PEA hysteresis modelling techniques review

At this juncture, review on hysteresis modelling techniques is presented.

Researchers have proposed different models for modelling hysteresis nonlinearity in
PEA. In general, the models are classified into physics based models and
phenomenological based models. Examples of phenomenological based models are
the Bouc-Wen model [46-52], the Duhem model [53], the Preisach model [54,55]
and the Prandtl Ishlinskii [15,56,57]. On the other hand, the fractional order Maxwell
resistive capacitive model [58], the Kelvin-Voigt model [59] and the Jiles-Anthon
model [60,61] are some examples of physics based hysteresis models in the
literature. Some hysteresis models are briefly discussed.
 34

I. Kelvin-Voigt Model

A classical viscoelastic model that is capable of modelling both PEA

hysteresis and creep. The PEA is analogically modelled as 'n' elements each
consisting of a damper (with damping coefficient, b) in parallel to a spring (with
stiffness, k) as shown in Figure 2.9.

Considering a single element and a sinusoidal vibration given by Eq. 2.23, the
restoring force is given by Eq. 2.24 [6].

y  a sin(t ) (2.23)

b 2
f  ky  by  ka sin(t )  ba cos(t )  ky  a  y2 (2.24)
a

Where y denotes displacement of the spring, k being an imaginary part which

implies the energy dissipation.

The piezoelectric displacement by the Kelvin Voigt model is given by Eq.

2.25 [6].

F   i 
K

y   i 1 c
n
1  e i 
b
(2.25)
Ki  

Where Fc is a step force applied to the spring.

 35

Figure 2.9 Generalized Kelvin-Voigt Model

Mechanical parameters k and f are replaced with electrical ones and V

respectively in analogy. The loss in piezoelectric which causes nonlinearity is

considered as a damper. As reported by Narges Miri et al. [6], if we account for the
loss in piezoelectric, the displacement in dynamic situation is given by Eq. 2.26.

y V 
y  sin(V ).   p (2.26)
d V  .b  b 

The constants P and b are determined by experiment and d(V) is the

piezoelectric coefficient. The piezoelectric coefficient is given by Eq. 2.27 [6],

 exp( (V  B))
d (V )  (2.27)
(1  exp( (V  B)))2

where d, V, α, λ and β are piezoelectric constant, voltage and Sigmoid respectively.

II. Parandtl-Ishlinskii model

According to Narges Miri et al. [6], this model is a subclass of the Preisach
model that is originally designed for ferromagnetic materials, but easier to implement
than the Preisach model. The model according to the above authors in [6] is a
 36

combination of hysteresis and structural vibration dynamic effects without the

knowledge of the internal structure of the system. Jung Zhang et al. [62] reported
that the model is capable of characterizing asymmetric and saturated hysteresis. The
model is defined by backlash operators as given by Eq. 2.28.

y(i)  H (i) (2.28)

y(i), H(i), i and ɷ are displacement, backlash operator, backlash operator width
and slope of the backlash in which:

H (i)  maxV (i)  r, min V (i)  r, H (i  1) (2.29)

where V(i) and r represent the voltage and the width of the input respectively and
H(i) is known as the play operator where the initial condition is given by Eq. 2.30.

H (i)  maxV (0)  r , min V (0)  r , h0  (2.30)

III. Preisach model

One of the most popular operator-based hysteresis model. The model captures
the hysteresis behaviour in nonlinear systems. The general expression for Preisach
model uses a double integrator in continuous form as given by Eq. 2.31 [63],

X (t )        ,   u t dd (2.31)

 37

where X(t) represents actuator displacement and μ(α,β) is a weighting function that is
selected based on experiment and experience [63].

IV. Bouc-Wen model

The model was identified by Bouc and modified by wen. Consider a 1-DOF
actuator with hysteresis nonlinearity. Its motion equation is given by Eq. 2.32,

m  b  k  k (deu  h(t )) (2.32)

where the parameters m, b, k, u, , de and h(t) represent the PEA mass, viscous
damping coefficient, elastic stiffness constant, driving voltage, PEA tip
displacement, piezoelectric strain coefficient and hysteresis displacement of the PEA
respectively.

An n-degree-of-freedom hysteresis nonlinearity is modelled using the Bouc-

Wen Eq. 2.33 and Eq. 2.34 that are adapted for PEA. The parameter, n is the
hysteresis order parameter that controls the smoothness of transition from elastic to
plastic response. For an actuator exhibiting hysteresis along longitudinal axis, Eq.
2.34 can be written as Eq. 2.35.

 (t )  deu  h(t ),  (t0 )   0 (2.33)

n1 n
h  u   u u h   u h , h(t0 )  h0 (2.34)

h(t )   u   u u   u h (2.35)
 38

where α, β and γ are the parameters that define the shape, orientation and magnitude
of the hysteresis loop.

Physics based models are built on corresponding physical effect based on first
principle [60]. They are developed in order to predict piezoelectric actuator
displacement profile from input voltage. Narges Miri et al. [6,64] reported that the
physics based models give better definition of the relationship between the parts of
the system dynamics. The major limitation with regards to using physics based
models is parameters estimation. Rather than optimization techniques, Ad-hoc
techniques are usually employed for their parameters identification. Commonly used
parameter identification techniques for phenomenological based models are the
particle swarm optimization (PSO) [14,15,50,51,57,65], nonlinear least square [61],
evolutionary algorithms based [48,49,59,66,67] etc. However, evolutionary
algorithms have complex algorithm that require high cost of computation and have
slow solution convergence compared to other techniques like the simple direct search
[68]. The PSO does not consider the gradient for the problem to be optimized hence
an optimal solution may not be obtained.

2.3.2.3 Hysteresis minimization techniques

There are several hysteresis minimization techniques in the literature.

Researchers have proposed state-feedback techniques for hysteresis minimization in
[19,56,69]. For this technique, sensors are usually used to measure the state of PEAs
(e.g. displacement). However, state-feedback sensors required for the feedback loop
bring about an additional system cost, additional size to the system and are slower,
hence, they reduce the PEA system's speed of response [70]. Hence, there is the need
to investigate other techniques that can minimize hysteresis better than these
 39

feedback techniques. An alternative minimization technique proposed by researchers

in the literature for hysteresis minimization is the feedforward technique
[15,46,47,71,72]. Feedforward minimization technique usually involves computing
an inverse model for hysteresis cancellation. Feedback techniques are simple and
some can be implemented without having full knowledge about the system, for
example the PID based feedback technique.

2.3.2.4 Residual vibration minimization techniques

The commonly used residual vibration suppression technique in the literature

is the input command shaping technique, an open-loop control technique [73]. The
technique was first introduced by Singer and Seeing in 1982 [74]. The technique
involves dividing the input signal into sequence of delayed impulses for examples
say two impulses. The vibration caused by one impulses is cancelled by that caused
by a second delayed impulse. The command shaping control design objective is to
find the amplitude and time locations of these impulses [75].

2.4 Summary

Table 2.1 is a summary of some selected literatures that were discussed

previously.
 40

Table 2.1: Literature review summary for some selected works

Author/Year Contribution Advantage Disadvantage

Md. Habibur Used finite element FEA avoids The method

Rahman et al., analysis software experimental used provides
[44] ABAQUS to model technique that an approximate
2013 piezoelectric actuator may be costly, solution.
for cell wall cutting time consuming,
difficult, or even
dangerous to
carry out.

Miri & Model both hysteresis Functions well Less accurate

Mohammad and creep in piezo for1Hz to 400Hz with regards to
zaheri [6] actuator using Kelvin- range of relaxation
2013 Voigt Model, a rate- frequencies
dependent model.

Jiang et al., Prandtl-Ishlinskii Very accurate Not applicable

[76] 2010 model. A rate- method of to rate-
dependent model that modelling and independent
combines hysteresis controlling hysteresis.
and structural vibration hysteresis
dynamic effects.
 41

Xin Feng Wu Used finite element FEA avoids It is only an

et al. [56] analysis (FEA) experimental approximate
2013 technique to model the technique that technique.
transfer function, may be costly,
vibration of complex time consuming,
aerospace structures difficult, or even
dangerous to
carry out.

Z. Mohamed & Used Input command  IPS requires  IPS alone

M. A. Ahmad, shaping (IPS) no feedback cannot
2008 [75] technique for vibration sensors. provide
control of Flexible  Requires only trajectory
Robot Manipulator system tracking
damping control.
factor and
natural
frequency

D. Habineza et Authors used Bouc-  The BW  However,

al. [46,47], A. Wen model to model model has few the BW
E hysteresis nonlinearity number of model is not
Charalampakis in PEA. parameters to invertible.
et. al. [48-50], be identified.
G. O. García et  Model can
al. 2013 [51] simply be
and implemented
C.-X. Cai et al. in MATLAB
2013 [52]
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology overview

At this point, the methodology of the work is presented. The complete

overview of the technical work is shown in Figure 3.1. Three PEA transfer function
models will be developed by employing system identification techniques. input and
output transient data was collected from finite element analysis and also from
experimental process using the physical PEA system in lab. Based on experimental
data, hysteresis model for the PEA actuator based on Bouc-Wen model was obtained.
Nelder-Mead simplex search optimization algorithm was employed for identifying
optimum Bouc-Wen model parameters. Vibrating PEA models were obtained from
FEA and experimental process. In order for the transfer function model to be
obtained through FEA, finite element (FE) model was developed that actually
mimics the real behaviour of a stack-type piezoelectric actuator. Commercially
available finite element analysis software ABAQUS version 6.14 was utilized to
develop the FE model of the vibrating PEA. Validations of the three models were
investigated based on level of models fitness to estimation data, mean squared error
(MSE), final prediction error (FPE) and from residual analysis perspective (based on
autocorrelation and cross correlation).
 43

In order to minimize hysteresis nonlinearity in the PEA actuator system,

Inverse Multiplicative technique (an open-loop technique) and feedback control
based on optimized PID control systems were investigated. The degrees of hysteresis
minimization by the open-loop and the feedback techniques were investigated based
on IAE. On the hand, LQR, PID, pole placement and reference command input
shaping technique (based ZV shaper) were implemented for residual vibration
suppression. The degree of residual vibration minimization offered by the various
control strategies were investigated based on IAE.

Start
Model Requires
Parameters
Data collection Identification?

Model Type Parameter

Optimization

Experiments
Optimized Control
System Design
Image Processing

System ID Acceptable
Response?

Valid model? End

Figure 3.1 Project methodology overview

 44

3.2 The experimental procedure

Figure 3.2 shows the platform for conducting the experiments. The prime
objective of the experiments are to capture hysteresis nonlinearity and the vibration
dynamics of the PEA system by capturing input and output data. A resin coated type
multilayer stack type PEA manufactured by NEC Tokin with item number
AE0505D16DF is the PEA system under study. As stated in the device datasheet [77],
the actuator maximum driving voltage is 150V DC with a corresponding maximum
output displacement of 17.4±2.0 μm. Hence the actuator's maximum displacement at
150 V ranges from 15.4 μm to 19.4 0 μm. Equipment and devices used for conducting
the experiments include: Olympus IX73-ICS inverted type microscope, a desktop
computer hooked to Olympus IX73-ICS, DC power supply unit, a laptop computer,
stack-type piezoelectric actuator, Arduino Uno R3 microcontroller module and signal
switching circuit. DC power supply unit was used to generate the required voltage that
was used for driving the PEA, while Arduino microcontroller based switching circuit
connected to a laptop computer was used for generating different signal wave forms.
The schematic of the microcontroller based switching circuit is given by Figure 3.3.
Signal from the microcontroller modulates the DC voltage across the collector-emitter
terminals of the transistor Q1 hence, based on current transistor configuration, the
signal reaching the PEA has the same frequency as the signal from the
microcontroller, but swings from 0 V to nearly the amplitude of the DC power source.
Software programs on a laptop computer were programmed onto the microcontroller
in order to generate the input signals' frequencies and wave forms of interest. The
PEA system was tested using different signal waveforms. Figure 3.4 shows a
triangular type input voltage that corresponds phase and unloading (decreasing
voltage) phase, while Figure 3.5 shows the corresponding change in tip position. The
PEA was also tested with a square wave type input signal vibrating at a frequency of
1Hz with a duty cycle of 50% as shown in Figure 3.6 while Figure 3.7 shows the
corresponding changes in tip position for the vibrating actuator at 1Hz. When an input
signal is applied to the PEA, change in the PEA's tip position (or displacement) were
 45

captured using the IX73-ICS inverted microscope. A video was recorded at 25 frames
per second with the help of the inverted microscope manufacturer software known as
DigiAcquis.

Figure 3.2 Platform for conducting the experiments

Figure 3.3 Arduino microcontroller based signal switching circuit

 46

140
Loading Phase
Unloading Phase
120

100
Voltage (V)

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (s)

Figure 3.4 Triangular form for increasing and decreasing input voltage signal

15
Tip Displacement (um)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (s)

Figure 3.5 Output displacement for increasing and decreasing input voltage signal
 47

70

60

50

Voltage (V) 40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150
Time (s)

Figure 3.6 Square wave input signal at 1 Hz

5
Tip Displacement (um)

0
0 50 100 150
Time (s)

Figure 3.7 Output displacement for 1Hz squarewave input voltage signal

In order for the frames to be analysed individually, the recorded PEA

displacement video was converted to still pictures with the help of third party
software. Figure 3.8a shows the position of the PEA tip at an input of 125 V as
captured by the microscope, while Figure 3.8b shows the tip position when the driving
voltage was 0 V.
 48

Actuator tip at 125V

Free space

Change in tip position

(a)

Actuator tip at 0V

Free space

(b)
Figure 3.8 Piezoelectric actuator tip displacement monitoring using inverted
microscope. (a) Tip at 125 V input. (b) Tip at 0 V input

Image processing techniques were used to determine the corresponding change

in displacement from the extracted frames when the driving voltage changes. ImageJ
v1.47 software was used to measure and record the corresponding tip displacement
from the reference as shown in Figure 3.9. Based on the current inverted microscope
magnification lens setting, it was found that 128.66 pixels corresponds to 20 μm. This
was the standard scale that was compared with every measurement. Sample of
collected input and output data from the hysteresis experiments is given by Table 3.1.
The graphical plot of actuator displacement against input displacement using the
obtained data is shown in Figure 3.10. Apparently, it can be observed that the PEA
 49

exhibits hysteresis nonlinearity. The actuator has two distinct displacement profile for
increasing voltage (loading case) and decreasing voltage (unloading case).

Table 3.1: Input and output data collected from hysteresis experiment
Reading Increasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing
Serial Voltage Displacement Voltage (V) Displacement
Number (V) (μm) (μm)
1 0 0.000 125 14.664
2 5 0.690 120 14.492
3 10 1.208 115 14.147
4 15 1.725 110 13.974
5 20 2.243 105 13.802
6 25 2.933 100 13.457
7 30 3.451 95 13.112
8 35 4.141 90 12.939
9 40 4.831 85 12.594
10 45 5.348 80 12.422
11 50 6.038 75 11.732
12 55 6.556 70 11.214
13 60 7.073 65 10.696
14 65 7.764 60 10.424
15 70 8.454 55 9.806
16 75 8.971 50 9.361
17 80 9.489 45 8.371
18 85 10.179 40 7.826
19 90 10.696 35 7.509
20 95 11.386 30 6.919
21 100 11.904 25 6.201
22 105 12.594 20 5.556
23 110 13.112 15 4.966
24 115 13.457 10 4.148
25 120 14.147 5 3.258
26 125 14.664 0 2.296
 50

Figure 3.9 Displacement measurement using ImageJ software

15
Loading Phase
Unloading Phase

10
Displacement (um)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Input Voltage (V)

Figure 3.10 A graphical plot of output displacement against input voltage

3.2.1 Hysteretic actuator transfer function model

At this point, the transfer function model of the actuator is obtained from the
rising and falling input data given by Table. 3.1. The MATLAB R2013a System
 51

identification toolbox was used for the modelling process. The transient input and
output data given by Table 3.1 was imported into the MATLAB workspace window
for the purpose of creating time domain data object as shown in Figure 3.11. The
imported data was further processed by detrending to remove offset means. The next
step performed was to select the type of estimation. Transfer function was selected as
shown in Figure 3.12. A couple of models were generated as shown in Figure 3.13 by

Figure 3.11 Time domain data import wizard

Figure 3.12 Type of model to be estimated selection GUI

 52

Figure 3.13 Generated transfer function models

trying different combination of zeroes and poles until a model that gives a better
estimate with regards to high percentage of fitness to validation data and lower MSE
and FPE errors. As given by Eq. 3.1, a fourth order model having a single zero was
found to give the best fitness with low MSE and FPE. The step response for the
model of Eq. 3.1 is shown in Figure 3. 14 while the time response criteria for the
model are given by Table 3.2.

3400S 62060
G S   (3.1)
S 4 572.5S 310120S 2 61670S 539200

Table 3.2: Model time response criteria

Settling Rise Time Overshoot Overshoot Final

Time (Ts) (Tr) (sec) (%OS) (OS) Value
(sec) % Kp
2.500 0.1550 52.8000 0.5280 0.1150
 53

Amplitude (um)

Time (sec)

Figure 3.14 Step response for the actuator model

3.2.1.1 Model validation

At this juncture the validity of the established given by Eq. 3.1 was
investigated. The model fits time domain validation data with 98.01% fitness and
MSE of 0.0081 and FPE of 0.0328. Based on this results, there is high percentage
fitness and very error levels hence, we can be rest assured that the established model
is valid. To further support this claim, residual analysis was employed to investigate
the model validity. The autocorrelation (Figure 3.15b) and cross correlation (Figure
3.15a) for the model are given by Figure 3.15. Based on 99.9% confidence interval
setting, we can see from Figure 3.15 that the model has passed validation tests based
on residual analysis. As shown in the given figure, it can be seen that majority of the
sampled data is within in the 99.9% confidence interval limit (given by the broken
lines) for autocorrelation and all the sampled data is within the confidence interval
limit for cross correlation examination.
 54

Autocorrelation
0.5

-0.5
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

1.5
Cross correlation
1

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Samples

Figure 3.15 Residual analysis (a) auto correlation (b) cross correlation

3.2.1.2 Model order reduction

The time response for the model were presented in Table 3.2. Based on these
criteria, we proceed by establishing a reduced second order model having similar
time response criteria. The general form for second order model is given by equation
3.2,

K pn2
G(s)  (3.2)
s 2  2n s  n2

where ωn is the natural frequency of the system, ζ is the damping factor of the
system and Kp is the system's final value. The two unknowns ζ and ωn were obtained
using Eq. 3.3 and Eq. 3.4 respectively.
 55

 ln(OS )
 (3.3)
 2  ln 2 (OS )

4
n  (3.4)
Ts

 ln(0.528)
Using Eq. 3.3,   ,   0.1992
 2  ln 2 (0.528)

4
Using Eq. 3.4, n  , n  8.0321 rad / s
2.5  0.1992

7.4192
Hence, from Eq. 3.2 we have: G(s)  (3.5)
s  3.200s  64.5151
2

By comparing Eq. 3.5 with Eq. 3.6 the transfer function parameters for the
actuator were extracted and presented in Table 3.3.

1
G( s)  (3.6)
ms 2  bs  k

Model order reduction validity was investigated by comparing the response for
the fourth order model and the reduced second order model. As shown in Figure
3.16, the two models have similar characteristics.
 56

Table ‎3.3: PEA parameters from transfer function model

Parameter Value Unit
Mass (m) 0.1348 Kg
Damping coefficient (b) 0.4313 N s/m
Elastic constant (K) 8.6957 N/m

0.18
Reduced Order Model
0.16 Original Model

0.14

0.12
Amplitude

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (seconds)

Figure 3.16 Model order reduction validation based on time response criteria

3.2.2 Hysteresis modelling based on Bouc-Wen model

The hysteresis model for the piezoelectric actuator was developed under this
section. Bouc-Wen model has been selected for the modelling the fact that it has few
parameters to be identified and its implementation in simulink is feasible. The
simulink block diagram shown in Figure 3.17 is based on Eq. 2.35 while the
complete hysteresis model shown in Figure 3.18 is based on Eq. 2.32. The transfer
 57

function for the piezoelectric actuator has been established under section 3.2.1 while
the corresponding reduced order model was established under section 3.2.1.2. The
next step taken was Bouc-Wen model parameters identification based on Nelder-
Mead simplex search optimization.

Figure 3.17 Bouc-Wen hysteresis model simulation block diagram

H(u)
T. Fcn.
-
r 𝒅𝒆 +
K G(S)

Figure 3.18 Complete hysteresis model for the PEA

 58

3.2.2.1 Bouc-Wen model identification using Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm

Obtaining optimum values for model parameters is a challenging task. Hence,

the identification problem becomes an optimization one. The objective in using
optimizations like Nelder-Mead is to minimize the objective function subject to
constraints. Nelder-Mead Simplex method was used to identify optimum Bouc-Wen
model parameters.

The steps executed by Nelder-Mead simplex optimization algorithm are as

follow [78]:

N 1
 A simplex, S is defined as a convex hull having N+1 vertices x j  
j 1
in an

N-dimensional space given by  N . The vertices satisfy the condition that

simplex hull volume is nonzero.

 An iteration starts from an initial simplex. Kth iteration starts by ordering and
N 1
  j1 such that
labeling the current vertices as x j
(k )

(k ) (k ) (k ) (k )
g1  g0  g3 .........  g N 1 (3.7)

(k ) (k )
 The point x is referred as the best point, point x2 as next to the worst,
N 1
(k )
point x1 as the worst point.
 59

 The goal is to minimize the cost point. For this reason, worst point is
discarded and many 'better' trial points are generated. Function values are
computed at the generated points.

 Next, a new simplex is constructed having N+1 vertices by utilizing rules that
favour minimization of the objective function.

 When iteration process terminates after reflection, a single function

evaluation is required. Two evaluations are needed for termination after an
expansion while a shrinkage step requires N+2 evaluations.

At the 262nd iteration, the solution converged. The trajectories for the Bouc-
Wen parameters alpha (α), beta (β) and gamma (γ) are shown in Figure 3.19a, Figure
3.19b and 3.19c respectively, while the trajectory for piezoelectric coefficient is
given by Figure 3.19d. The optimum model parameters values are tabulated in Table
3.4.

Table 3.4: Identified Bouc-Wen model parameters and piezoelectric coefficient

Parameter Initial Guess Optimum Value Unit
Alpha (α) 7.2 x 10-2 8.0947 x 10-2 -
Beta (β) 1.76 x 10-2 3.8017 x 10-3 -
Gamma (γ) 1.66 x 10-2 -5.4001 x 10-3 -
-1 -1
Piezoelectric Coefficient 1.273 x 10 2.0573 x 10 μm/V
 60

Trajectories of Estimated Parameters

0.1

Alpha

alpha
0.05

0
0.02 (a)
Beta
beta

0.01
Parameter Values

0 (b)
0.05
Gamma
gamma

-0.05 (c)
0.4
Piezoelectric Coefficient
strain

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iterations
Iterations

(d)

Figure 3.19 Parameters trajectories (a) alpha (b) beta (c) gamma (d) piezoelectric
coefficient.

3.2.3 Vibrating piezoelectric actuator transfer function model

At this juncture the transfer function model for the vibrating piezoelectric
actuator was developed. From the experimental procedure reported under section 3.2
of this work, input and output data for the vibrating PEA was collected. The
squarewave type input signal and the corresponding output displacement have been
shown in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 respectively under section 3.2. Input and output
data obtained using image processing techniques discussed earlier under section 3.2.
At a sampling rate of 4Hz a total of 400 input and output data sets were collected for
the purpose of establishing the vibrating PEA's transfer function based on system
 61

identification technique. Table 3.5 is a sample of the input and output data for the
vibrating PEA. Complete data is attached at the appendix of the report. Using the
same system identification procedure discussed in section 3.2.1, the transfer function
for the vibrating PEA given by Eq. 3.8 was obtained. Step response for the vibrating
PEA is given by Figure 3.20 while time response criteria for the system by Table 3.6.

Table 3.5: Samples of input and output data for vibrating PEA
S/N Voltage Displacement S/N Voltage Displacement
(V) (um) (V) (um)
1 0.063 0.000 31 0.063 6.543
2 0.063 0.000 32 0.063 6.543
3 63.050 6.543 33 63.050 0.000
4 63.050 6.543 34 63.050 0.000
5 0.063 0.000 35 0.063 6.543
6 0.063 0.000 36 0.063 6.543
7 63.050 6.543 37 63.050 0.000
8 63.050 6.543 38 63.050 0.000
9 0.063 0.000 39 0.063 6.666
10 0.063 0.000 40 0.063 6.666
11 63.050 6.666 41 63.050 0.000
12 63.050 6.666 42 63.050 0.000
13 0.063 0.123 43 0.063 6.666
14 0.063 0.123 44 0.063 6.666
15 63.050 6.543 45 63.050 0.123
16 63.050 6.543 46 63.050 0.123
17 0.063 0.000 47 0.063 6.543
18 0.063 0.000 48 0.063 6.543
19 63.050 6.420 49 63.050 0.123
20 63.050 6.420 50 63.050 0.123
21 0.063 0.000 51 0.063 6.666
22 0.063 0.000 52 0.063 6.666
23 63.050 6.543 53 63.050 0.000
24 63.050 6.543 54 63.050 0.000
25 0.063 0.000 55 0.063 6.666
26 0.063 0.000 56 0.063 6.666
27 63.050 6.666 57 63.050 0.123
28 63.050 6.666 58 63.050 0.123
29 0.063 0.000 59 0.063 6.666
30 0.063 0.000 60 0.063 6.666
 62

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
Amplitude (um)

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03

-0.035

-0.04

-0.045
0 5 10 15
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Figure 3.20 Step response for vibrating PEA

Table 3.6: Time response criteria for the vibrating PEA

Settling Rise Overshoot Overshoot Final
Time, (Ts) Time, (%OS) (OS) Value
sec (Tr) sec % Kp
9.2400 0.1880 80.2000 0.8020 -0.0248

0.8498
G( s)  (3.8)
s  0.8194s  34.8
2

3.2.3.1 Vibration model validation

Figure 3.21 shows residual analysis results for the vibrating PEA. System
identification results shows that the established model fits validation data by 96.32%
 63

1
Autocorrelation
0.5

-0.5

-1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
(a)
1
Cross correlation
0.5

-0.5

-1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Samples

(b)

Figure ‎3.21 Vibrating PEA residual analysis (a) autocorrelation (b) cross correlation

fitness level with an MSE of 0.01468 and FPE of 0.01559. Based on the degree of
fitness and very small error levels, the model has passed validation test. Figure 3.21
shows residual analysis validation where Figure 3.21a showed autocorrelation of the
residuals for input voltage while Figure 3.21b showed cross correlation for input
voltage and output displacement. It can be seen all sampled data is within the 99.9%
confidence boundary. Hence, we can conclude that the model has passed validation
test from residual analysis perspective.
 64

3.3 Finite element model development using ABAQUS

FEA software ABAQUS would be utilized for developing the FE model of

the PEA. The software can be used to model and simulate both direct piezoelectric
effect (for the case where piezoelectric sensor is modelled) and inverse piezoelectric
effect (for the case where piezoelectric actuator is modelled).

For creating the 3-dimensional FE model in ABAQUS, the following steps

are carried out:

I. Step 1 (part creation): a 5 mm by 5 mm square is sketched using the

section sketch sub-module under the part module. The square sketch is
extruded (using solid extrude) with a depth of 4 mm to give the first 3-
dimensional layer of the PEA. Additional 3D layers will be developed
and attached to this first layer to give a multilayer stack piezoelectric
actuator FE model. Figure 3.22a shows the 2D part section sketch while
figure 3.22b shows the 3D solid extrude of the part.

II. Step 2 (finite element meshing): in this step the finite element mesh is
applied to the 3D part. The part is meshed with element type C3D8E
(an 8-node linear piezoelectric brick) type of mesh with linear
geometric order, under standard element library. The meshed part
 65

(a) (b)

Figure 3.22 (a) Two dimensional to (b) three-dimensional FE model development

Figure 3.23 Layer 1 meshed with C3D8E element type mesh

contains a total number of 800 elements (of type C3D8E) and a total
number of 1089 nodes. Figure 3.23 showed the meshed part with
approximate global size of 0.5mm.

III. Step 3 (Material property definition and polarization): for the

piezoelectricity modelling in ABAQUS, standard piezoelectricity
parameters given by Eq. 2.1 and Eq. 2.2 are required to be defined
 66

properly under the property module. These parameters that are required
are: elastic compliance (or stiffness) constants, any of piezoelectric
strain or stress coefficients, dielectric permittivity constants (or
permittivity) and material density. These properties depends on the type
of the piezoelectric material being used. For the purpose of this work, a
PZT-5H piezoelectric material is selected because it has the largest
value of longitudinal strain coefficient (d33-coefficient). The PZT
materials that were used for the material property definition under the
material property module are summarized in Table 3.7. The material
properties are defined in ABAQUS as a z-axis polarized material (or
d33-mode).

Table 3.7: Summarized material properties for a z-poled PZT-5H ceramic material
Parameter (unit) Value

Elastic stiffness constants  126 79.5 84.1 0 0 0 

 
(Pa)  79.5 126 84.1 0 0 0 
 84.1 84.1 117 0 0 0 
   10 9
 0 0 0 23 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 23 0 

 0 0 0 23.5 
 0 0

Material density (Kg/m3) 7500

Piezoelectric strain coefficients  0 0  2.74 

 
(m/V)  0 0  2.74 
 0 0 5.93 
   10 10
 0 7.41 0 
 7.41 0 0 

 0 0 
 0
 67

Dielectric permittivity 1.505 0 0 

 
constants  0 1.505 0   10 8
 0 1.301
(F/m)  0

It is to be noted that manufacturer data sheets give these parameters in

standard matrix notation form. In order for these parameters to be used
in ABAQUS care should be taken in converting the matrix notations to
tensor forms.

IV. Step 4 (Section creation and assignment): The next step carried out was
section property definition to the part model. This was done using the
section module under the model tree. Figure 3.24 shows the graphical
user interface (GUI) for the section module. The section for the
piezoelectric layer was defined as a solid homogenous type section.
This is because the PZT-5H material is solid in nature and is also a
homogenous material. The z-poled material property defined under the
previous step before this were linked to the section that is created under
the current step. Section assignment to the 3-dimensional part model
was then performed by accessing the section assignment sub module
located under the part module tree. The GUI window for the section
assignment is illustrated in Figure 3.25. The section to be assigned was
selected using the combo box (drop down menu) that is next to the label
that is named 'section' under the section group on the 'edit section' GUI.
 68

Figure 3.24 Section module main GUI

 69

Figure 3.25 Section assignment main GUI

V. Step 5 (layer-1 orientation definition): The orientation for the 3-

dimensional part (layer-1) was then defined using the orientation sub
menu under the part module. The orientation of the part was defined as
global type with direction-1 corresponding to x-axis, direction-2
corresponding to y-axis and direction-3 corresponding to the z-axis of
conventional xyz-plane. Figure 3.26 shows the 3-dimensional layer-1
with axis defined.
 70

Figure 3.26 Layer-1 orientation definition

VI. Step 6 (assembling): the assembly module is used to assemble parts

together in a global coordinate system. Using the assembly module, part
instance for layer-1 was created. Later, other layers instances will be
created (by creating instances of the various layers) and assemble them
together so that they share common global coordinate system.

VII. Step 7 (analysis step creation): the step module was used to create an
analysis step. By default, ABAQUS creates a step names initial and
user can create other additional steps. The step is necessary for us to be
able to capture changes in the boundary conditions (which we will
create later). The step was named 'VOLTAGE_APPLIED' and is of the
type general static as shown in Figure 3.27a. The time period for the
analysis step was limited to two seconds with a fixed increment of 0.1
second which is sufficient for enough data to be written during the
 71

(a) (b)

Figure 3.27 (a) Step creation user interface (b) Output variables request

analysis. For a period of 2 seconds, 20 sets of data can be recorded using

this setting we defined. Similarly, the step is required for us to be able to
request for output variables during the analysis runtime using the field
output request option under the step module tree. As shown in Figure 3.27b
electrical potential and rotations/translations output variable were requested
to be reported by ABAQUS during the analysis runtime.
VIII.

VIII. Step 8 (Defining Boundary Condition, BC): the first boundary condition
created was an encastre type boundary condition (BC). This was
applied to the to the base (reference) of the piezoelectric layer as it can
be seen in Figure 3.28. This boundary condition holds the actuator base
by disallowing rotational and translational displacement in all
directions. This was done through the Boundary Conditions (BCs)
 72

Figure ‎3.28 Encastre boundary condition applied

module and was created under the default step initial. The BC was set to
propagated through all other analysis steps. The next BC applied to the
piezoelectric layer was electric potential ground (GND). This was applied
to the face coloured red as it can be seen in Figure 3.29. This BC provides
electric potential ground for electric potential differences that we will apply
in the future to the piezoelectric layer. This BC was created under the main
analysis step titled 'VOLTAGE_APPLIED'.

Figure 3.29 Voltage ground boundary condition

 73

The next step carried out was electric potential BC definition. The BC
face was picked from the viewport. The face this BC was applied is the
same face that encastre BC was applied earlier. An electric potential of
150V was applied as shown in Figure 3.30. The BC was defined under
'VOLTAGE_APPLIED' step.

IX. Step 9 (multilayer FE model development): By repeating step 1 through

to step 8, other piezoelectric layers were created. A tie type constraint
was used to hold the layers together and the contact between respective
layers surfaces were assumed to be frictionless. This is because in
practice, commercial multilayer piezoelectric actuator internal layers
(see Figure 2.2) do not have physical contacts with the other adjacent
layers . For the purpose of simulation, we tie the layers together and the
interaction property between these layers was assumed to be
frictionless. By setting the interaction property to be frictionless, each
layer does not interact with the layer next to it. This is also true for the
case of a practical multilayer piezoelectric actuators. However, some

Figure ‎3.30 Electric potential boundary condition creation

 74

modifications were performed compared to the first layer created

previously. The first modification was that other layers were not
assigned 'encastre' BC. Secondly, the electrical BCs for each layer was
created in a way that adjacent layers will be connected electrically in
parallel and physically connected in series. Furthermore, second set of
material property and section were also created. The second set of
property was created by modifying the signs of the longitudinal strain
coefficient (d33), and the two transverse strain coefficients (d31 and
d32) as well. By reversing the signs of these coefficients, we simply
achieve a change in piezoelectric material polarization to the opposite
direction to that of the original layer-1. These modifications were
necessary in order to copy the behaviours and properties of a practical
piezoelectric actuator layers. Figure 3.31 shows the assembly view of
the multilayer piezoelectric actuator while Figure 3.32 shows the
meshed multilayer piezoelectric actuator FE model.

Figure 3.31 Multilayer piezoelectric actuator assembly

 75

Figure 3.32 Meshed multilayer piezoelectric actuator FE model

X. Step 10 (job creation): having set and applied all the necessary steps
and conditions required in developing FE model of the piezoelectric
actuator, the next step performed was creating a job. Using the job
manager GUI the model was submitted for processing. When the job
was completed, results were available for simulation and other post-
processing steps.

3.3.1 Finite Element Model Validation

As it was given by Eq. 2.9 and Eq. 2.10, the displacement in both the
longitudinal and transverse directions are dependent on the magnitude of the applied
voltage (or electric field) and the respective strain coefficient in the direction.
 76

For longitudinal displacement:

Applied voltage: 150 V, Strain coefficient (d33): 593 x 10-12 m

Number of layers (n): 5, Direction of displacement: +Z

l3 V
Using Eq. (2.9): S i  d ji E j  Strain, S 3   d 33  3
t

l3 l3

Hence, l3 (displacement3 )  d 33  V3  5.93  10 10  150  8.895  10 8 m

For 5 layers, l3  n  d 33  V3  5  5.93  10 10  150  4.4475  10 7 m

For comparison purpose, we have presented samples of input and output

simulation data obtained and theoretical data in Table 3.8. complete input and output

Table 3.8: Comparison between theoretical and simulation results

S/N Simulation Theory
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement Error
(V) (μm) (V) (μm) (%)
1 15 4.34E-02 15 4.45E-02 -2.47
2 30 8.67E-02 30 8.90E-02 -2.58
3 45 1.30E-01 45 1.33E-01 -2.26
4 60 1.73E-01 60 1.78E-01 -2.80
5 75 2.17E-01 75 2.22E-01 -2.25
6 90 2.60E-01 90 2.67E-01 -2.62
7 105 3.04E-01 105 3.11E-01 -2.25
8 120 3.50E-01 120 3.56E-01 -1.69
9 135 3.90E-01 135 4.00E-01 -2.50
10 150 4.34E-01 150 4.45E-01 -2.47
 77

is attached in the appendix-D section of the report.

For transverse displacement (along direction-2):

Applied voltage: 150 V

Strain coefficient (d32): 274 x 10-12 m

Length of layer (l3): 4 mm

Width of layer in direction 2 (w2): 5 mm

Direction of displacement: +Y and -Y (Hence, we have 2Δw)

w2 V
Using Eq. (2.9): S i  d ji E j  Strain, S 2   d 32  3
t

w2 l3
w2 5
2w2 (displacement2 )  d 32  V3   2.74  10 10  150   5.1375  10 8 m
l3 4

5.1375 108
Hence, w2 (displacement2 )   2.5688 108 m
2

Table 3.9: y-axis displacement comparison along single direction

Simulation Theory Error (%)
Voltage (V) Displacement Voltage (V) Displacement
(μm) (μm)
150 2.578E-02 150 2.569E-02 +0.350
 78

3.3.2 FEA model transfer function generation

Based on finite element analysis input and output data, we proceed with
transfer function model generation using the same system identification technique
initially discussed under section 3.2.1. At a sampling interval of 0.1 seconds a total
number of 41 data sets were collected for the identification. The sample values of the
data sets were presented in Table 3.8. However, completed data sets have been
included in the appendix-C section of this report. The transfer unction model with the
highest fitness level and lowest MSE and FPE was a fourth order model with four
zeroes given by Eq. 3.9.

0.0287s 4  46.73s3  136.8s 2  8651s  242.4

G( s)  (3.9)
s 4  1629s3  5402s 2  3.017e5 s  8452

3.3.3 FEA model validation

System identification process gives a 100% fitness to validation data and

MSE and FPE of 1.0011e-15 and 4.6970e-16 respectively. The validity test was
extended to residual analysis. As shown in Figure 3.33a all the sampled data is within
the 99.9% confidence interval boundary for autocorrelation function, similarly, all
data is within 99.9% confidence limits for cross correlation function given by Figure
3.33b. Figure 3.34 shows the step response for the vibrating PEA based on FEA data.
 79

0.5
Autocorrelation

-0.5

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

(a)

Cross correlation
0.5

-0.5

-1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Samples
(b)

Figure 3.33 FEA model residual analysis (a) autocorrelation (b) cross correlation
Amplitude (um)

Time (sec)

Figure 3.34 FEA model step response for vibrating PEA

 80

3.4 Control systems design

At this point the various control systems for hysteresis minimization and
residual vibration suppression were designed. The design task has been divided into
two branches, a branch each for hysteresis minimization and residual vibration
suppression.

3.4.1 Hysteresis minimization control systems designs

Hysteresis minimization was investigated based on optimized PID control

scheme and Inverse Multiplicative structure. In the coming section, feedback scheme
based on PID controller for hysteresis minimization is presented.

The PEA transfer function model (Eq. 3.5) stability shows that the system has
poles at (1.6  j 7.9) . Since all the system poles are located on the left half of the s-
plane this shows that the system is stable.

As a pre-requisite to control system designs, the controllability and

observability of the system should be investigated. The state-space matrices for the
system of Eq. 3.5 are given by

 3.2 64.52 1 
A  , B    , C   0 7.42
 1 0  0
 81

Controllability matrix G c   B AB  has full rank. Hence the system is

controllable. Similarly, observability matrix G o  C CA has full rank. We can

T

also conclude that the system is observable.

3.4.1.1 Hysteresis minimization based on optimized PID controller

PID control is the most common type of feedback control. More than 95% of
control loops in process control loops are of PID type [79]. In practice all PID
controllers are realized using microprocessor or microcontroller. This added features
like automatic gain tuning and gain scheduling [80]. The PID controller has
extensive functionality and applications, but due to the lack of proper understanding,
the full power of PID is not efficiently utilized[81]. PID has proportional, integral
and derivative actions. The functions performed by each action are summarized in
Table 3.10. The gains Kp, Ki and Kd determine how much of the proportional,
integral and derivative actions are used. Figure 3.35 shows a simplified parallel form

Figure 3.35 Simplified block diagram for parallel form PID control
 82

Table 3.10: Summary of the control actions by PID controller gains

Closed-loop Rise Time Overshoot Settling Time Steady State
response Error
Kp Decrease Increase Small Change Decrease
Ki Decrease Increase Increase Eliminate
Kd Small Decrease Decrease Decrease Small Change

PID. It basically explains what a PID controller does. The difference between the
setpoint (SP) and the process variable (PV) gives the error. The error gets multiplied
by one of the PID action or two or all the three PID actions depending on which
actions are turned on, and the result obtained gives the PID controller output (or
control effort) given by uc(t).

The PID controller algorithm is given by Eq. 3.10. The error, e(t) given by
Eq. 3.11 is the tracking error obtained as the difference between the reference
setpoint and the actual output [82]. The hysteresis nonlinearity problem here is
treated as the error that occurs in tracking the desired output displacement. Block
diagram for the hysteresis compensation based PID control scheme is given by
Figure 3.36 where the Bouc-Wen hysteresis model, H(u) stiffness constant, k and
transfer function model G(s) all have been established before this point. The tuning
parameters Kp, Ki and Kd for the PID controller given by Table 3.11 were obtained
using Nelder-Mead simplex search optimization technique. Initial guess for the
tuning parameters were established using MATLAB automatic tuning feature in
order to speed up the optimization process.

d
uc  t   K pe  t   Ki  e t dt Kd e t  (3.10)
dt

e  t    r (t )  (t ) (3.11)
 83

H(u)
h T. Fcn.

uc -
𝒅𝒆 +
K G(S)

Bouc-Wen model
-
PID
+ r

Figure 3.36 Hysteresis minimization based on optimized PID control structure

Table 3.11: Optimum values for the PID controller tuning parameters for hysteresis
minimization.
Initial Guess Optimal Gains
Kp Ki Kd Kp Ki Kd
52.6280 70.6480 3.9813 50.1370 84.4050 3.9926

3.4.1.2 Hysteresis minimization by Inverse Multiplicative technique

The Inverse Multiplicative technique is an open-loop control strategy. The

structure of the control strategy is given by Figure 3.37. The goal is to have the
desired tip displacement and actual tip displacement satisfy Eq. 3.12 (i.e. zero error).
By writing h(t)=H(u), Eq. 2.33 can be written in reduced form given by Eq. 3.13.
The parameter u in this case denotes the input signal to the system.

 r (t )  (t )  0 (3.12)
 84

 (t )  deu  H (u ) (3.13)

Considering Eq. 3.13, if we consider only the linear term given by deu, we
can extract the value of u such that the desired displacement is, r is satisfied. By
doing this, Eq. 3.14 was obtained. The compensator is given by Eq. 3.14. The
compensator has the displacement of interest, r as the input command, a nonlinear
feedback, H(u) and output, u. Unlike most model inversion based hysteresis
minimization techniques, no complex calculations were needed to obtain an inverse
hysteresis model. The only required inversion the technique requires is that of de and
is strictly positive. Since de and H(u) have been identified earlier, no further
calculations are needed. For this reason, in terms of computational cost the
compensator implementation is simple.

1
de  r
u   H (u )  (3.14)

Compensator Bouc-Wen model

H(u) H(u) h
𝟏 u -
+ 𝒅𝒆 +
r 𝒅𝒆
+

G(S) K

Figure 3.37 Hysteresis minimization by Inverse Multiplicative technique block

diagram
 85

3.4.2 Residual vibration minimization control strategies

At this point the various strategies that were employed for residual vibration
suppression are presented. LQR, ZV input shaper, pole placement and PID control
strategies were investigated for level of residual vibration suppression. The various
strategies are discussed in the next coming sub-sections.

The PEA transfer function (Eq. 3.8) stability shows that the system has poles
at (0.41  j5.88) . Since all the system poles are located on the left half of the s-
plane, it shows that the system is stable.

As a pre-requisite to control system designs, the controllability and

observability of the system should be investigated. The state-space matrices for the
system of Eq. 3.8 are given by

 0.82 34.80  1 
A  , B    , C   0 0.85
 1 0  0 

Both controllability and observability matrices Gc   B AB  and

G o  C CA respectively have full ranks. Hence the system is controllable and
T

observable.
 86

3.4.2.1 LQR based residual vibration minimization strategy

LQR theory is a control method suited for obtaining the parameters of a

controller necessary for optimal control of a dynamic system. Assuming the system
of interest is described by a state-vector form given by Eq. 3.14 with A and B as the
state and output matrices of the system respectively, the LQR algorithm computes a
control law, U in a way that the cost function J given by Eq. 3.15 is minimized.
Matrices Q and R hold the deviation penalties of the state variables from the their
setpoint (or desired value) and the control actions respectively. If we increase the
value of an element that is associated with deviations of state variable from its
setpoint, and hence the specific gain of the control will become larger. Increasing the
value of R matrix, a larger penalty is applied to the aggressiveness of the control
process, and the control gains are decreased [83].

x(t )  Ax(t )  Bu(t ) (3.14)

 x(t ) 

J  T
Qx(t )  U (t )T RU (t ) dt (3.15)


The main objective of LQR control is to maintain state deviation close to zero
and keep the control minimal. If ones objective is to keep the state x(t) near zero,
then it is known as state regulator system while in the case where the objective is to
maintain the state near a desired value, it is known as tracking [84].

Figure 3.38 shows simulink diagram for the LQR control strategy. Tuning
matrices Q and R are given by Eq. 3.16, while Eq. 3.17 gives the control law
feedback gain, K and steady state error compensator, N obtained based on Eq. 3.16.

 443 0 
Q , R 1 (3.16)
 0 335
 87

Figure 3.38 LQR based vibration control structure with IAE measurement capability

K   20.4813 5.0251 , N  20.4681 (3.17)

3.4.2.2 Zero vibration input shaping based residual vibration minimization

For high precision positioning it is required that the residual vibration in the
positioning system should be zero. Zero vibration (ZV) input command shaping is an
open-loop technique for removing residual vibration in under-damped or undamped
systems [73].

The technique is implemented by convolving a sequence of impulses with a

desired command as demonstrated by Figure 3.39. As shown in Figure 3.40, if we
give the system an impulse signal, it will oscillates, however, if we applying a second
impulse to the system, the oscillation as a result of the first impulse will be cancelled
by the vibration caused by the second impulse. In this way, ZV response is achieved.
 88

Figure 3.39 ZV-shaping technique

Figure 3.40 Two impulses response

The amplitudes A1 and A2 and their corresponding time locations t1 and t2

need to be derived in order to achieve vibration cancellation. The required system
information for designing the command input shaper are an estimate of the PEA's
natural frequency, ω0 and damping factor, ζ. Eq. 3.18 gives the residual from
sequence of impulse [73].

 tn
   
2 2
V (0 ,  )  e 0 C 0 ,   S 0 ,  (3.18)
 89

where,

n  t
C (0 ,  )   Ai e 0 i cos( w ti ) (3.19)
i 1 d

n  t
S (0 ,  )   Ai e 0 i sin( w ti ) (3.20)
i 1 d

Ai and ti are the amplitudes and time locations of the impulse signals, where n

refers to the number of sequence of impulses while w  1   2 . Residual

d
vibration percentage is given by Eq. 3. 18. The equation gives us information with
regards to vibration amount that a sequence will cause in relation to the vibration
caused by a single, unity-magnitude impulse. The amplitudes and time locations of
the impulse signals that will bring about zero vibration are obtained by equating Eq.
3.18 to zero. The restriction given by Eq. 21 is set to avoid a zero-valued or
infinitely-valued impulses. This is to say, the sum of the impulses is set to unity.

 Ai  1 (3.21)

In order to obtain a bounded solution, the amplitudes are limited to finite or

positive values as according to Eq. 22.

Ai  0, i  1, 2,........, n (3.22)
 90

At this juncture, the task is to find the sequence of impulse amplitudes that
make Eq. 3.18 to zero at the same time the constraints defined by Eq. 3.21 and Eq.
3.22. For the problem in this work, there are four unknowns -impulses amplitudes (A1
and A2) and their corresponding time locations (t1 and t2). Without lost of generality,
the time location for the first amplitude (A1) can be set to zero [73] in order to avoid
unnecessary time delays, hence there are three more unknowns that need to be
determined. For Eq. 3.18 to be zero, both Eq. 3.19 and Eq. 3.20 are required to be
independently zero, because the two equations are squared in Eq. 3.18. Hence, the
two impulses must satisfy Eq. 3.23 and Eq. 3.24.

0t2
A1  A2e cos( w t2 )  0 (3.23)
d

0t2
A2e sin( w t2 )  0 (3.24)
d

Equation 3.24 is satisfied when sin( w t )  0 . This occurs when

d2

n nTd
w t2  n ,  t2   , n  1, 2... (3.25)
d w 2
d

where Td is the damped period of vibration. In order for the vibration to be cancelled
in the shortest amount of time, the smallest value of t2 is chosen as

T
t2  d (3.26)
2
 91

In this case, the amplitude constraint defined by Eq. 3.21 reduces to Eq. 3.27.

A1  A2  0 (3.27)

If we substitute Eq. 3.26 and Eq. 3.27 into Eq. 3.23, the result is given by Eq.
3.28. Reformatting Eq. 3.29 gives Eq. 3.29.


A1  (1  A1) exp( ) (3.28)
1  2


exp( )
1  2
A1  (3.29)

1  exp( )
1  2


By defining K  exp( ) , the impulse signals can be summarized in matrix
1  2
form given by Eq. 3.30.

 1 K 
 Ai  
   1  K 1 k  (3.30)

 ti   0 0.5T 
 d

From the vibration model earlier obtained and presented as Eq. 3.8, we can
extract the following:
 92

0  34.8  5.8991 rads 1 (3.31)

0.8194
20  0.8194,     0.06945 (3.32)
20

 0.2182
Hence, K  exp( )  exp ( ),  K  0.8036
1  2 0.9976

1 K
Therefore, A 
1 1  K  0.5545
. Similarly, A 
2 1  K  0.4456


Time location for A2 is t   0.5338s
2
0 1  2

To summarize the ZV input shaper control design, the four unknowns

obtained are tabulated in Table 3.12. The simulink implementation of the ZV input
shaper is shown in Figure 3.41. The simulink model was extended to have unit for
measuring IAE value for the ZV shaper for residual vibration suppression.

Table 3.12: Summary for ZV shaper design

Parameter t1 t2 A1 A2
Value 0.000 0.5338 0.5545 0.4456
Unit seconds seconds - -
 93

Figure 3.41 ZV input shaper control structure with IAE measurement unit

3.4.2.3 Pole placement control system design for vibration control

Pole placement technique is a full-state feedback technique. The technique

has similar implementation as LQR previous discussed. However, the pole placement
does not give us the ability to apply penalty to particular states of interest. The role of
pole placement technique is to improve system's transient response by positioning all
the system poles to the left half of the s-plane [85]. Based on performance
specifications, a desired characteristics equation given by Eq. is obtained. If there are
more than two poles, the remaining poles can be selected by positioning them in the
s-plane further away to the left of the dominant poles of the system obtained based
on time response specifications. The placement is done arbitrarily until a satisfactory
result is obtained. However, in the case where there are only two system poles like
our case, there are no other poles that their location needs be obtained by trial. In this
case, all the system poles can be obtained purely from time response specifications.
 94

d ( s)  s n  a1s n1  a2 s n2  ...  an  0 (3.33)

The idea is to have the closed loop system matrix modified. The parameter K
is the feedback gain that ensures the system is forced to meet design specifications.
Modified closed loop system matrix, Ac is given by Eq. 3.34,

Ac  ( A  BK ) (3.34)

where A is the original system matrix and B is the system's output matrix.

The closed loop system's characteristic is now given by Eq. 3.35,

c ( s)  s  ( A  BK )  0 (3.35)

In order to extract the feedback gain vector, K the coefficients of the terms in
Eq. 3.33 and those of the terms in Eq. 3.35 are compared directly.

The design requirements in this work are to have a closed-loop system with a
maximum overshoot of 2% and a settling time of 0.5 seconds. Using these
specifications, the task is to build a second order model with characteristics equation
given by Eq. 3.36.

d ( s)  s 2  20s  02  0 (3.36)

 95

The parameters  and  are calculated using Eq. 3.37 and Eq. 3.38 respectively,
0


1 2
O.S  e (3.37)

4
Ts  2 (3.38)
0

where O.S and Ts represent overshoot and settling time respectively.

Based on system specifications, damping factor and natural frequency of the

system were obtained as   0.7797 and 0  10.2604 rads 1 respectively. The

desired characteristics equation is given by Eq. 3.39.

d ( s)  s 2  16s  105.27  0 (3.39)

By comparing Eq. 3.39 with Eq. 3.35, the gain matrix, K is given by Eq. 3.40. The
compensator, N is a pre-compensator that helps for zero steady state error to be
achieved. Its value is scaled using Eq. 3.40.

K  13.18 14.38 , N  20.48 (3.40)

 96

3.4.2.4 PID control system design for vibration control

The PID control strategy has been has discussed under section 3.4.1.1. Under
this section, we present the optimum PID tuning parameter values (Kp, Ki and Kd).
The values for the PID tuning parameters given by Table 3.13 were obtained based
on Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm. The simulink implementation of the PID based
vibration control strategy is shown in Figure 3.42.

3.5 Summary

Experiments have been conducted for modelling hysteresis and vibration

based on system identifications. Validations of the models have been conducted.
Control strategies for hysteresis and vibration minimizations have been investigated

Table 3.13: PID controller gains for vibration control

Parameter Kp Ki Kd
Value -315.61 -248.67 -87.31

Figure 3.42 PID based vibration control simulink model

 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Chapter overview

At this point the various results obtained are presented and discussed. The
results presented include simulation results from identified Bouc-Wen model, results
obtained from the various control strategies for hysteresis minimization and results
for residual vibration control based on the different control strategies reported in this
work. The degrees of hysteresis minimization and residual vibration control by the
different control systems are investigated based on integral absolute error.

4.1.1Bouc-Wen hysteresis model simulated data and experimental data

Earlier, the optimum parameter for the Bouc-Wen models have been
identified and were presented in Table 3.4 under section 3.2.2.1. Figure 4.1 shows a
comparison between the real physical PEA system and simulated data based on the
established Bouc-Wen model. It can be seen that the simulated data is in agreement
 98

16
Measured data
14
Simulated data

12

10
Displacement(um)

-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Input Voltage (V)

Figure 4.1 A graphical comparison between measured data and simulated data
obtained from identified Bouc-Wen hysteresis model.

with data measured experimentally. Referring to Figure 4.1, the maximum hysteresis
gap is about 3 μm. This gap difference represents a 3 μm difference in recorded
output displacement between rising input voltage levels and decreasing voltage
levels. For most applications requiring high precise positioning, positioning error
may be up to about 3 μm. In order to quantify the magnitude of the error due to
hysteresis, IAE was employed. The IAE error for the uncontrolled hysteresis was
recorded as 67.73. This IAE value was set as the standard upon which the
performances of the various hysteresis minimization control techniques in this work
were evaluated.
 99

4.1.2 Hysteresis minimization results and discussions

Two hysteresis minimization control strategies have been presented earlier.

Optimized PID was presented in section 3.4.1.1 and Inverse Multiplicative technique
presented in section 3.4.1.2. The results for hysteresis minimization based on PID
and Inverse Multiplicative technique are given by Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3
respectively. The two plots were separated for clear residual hysteresis gap visuals
without one curve overlapping the order. Figure 4.2 shows that, the residual gap for
hysteresis minimization using PID is a little bit wider when compared to that of
hysteresis minimization based on Inverse Multiplicative technique given by Figure
4.3. For the purpose of quantifying the degrees of hysteresis minimizations by the
various control strategies, IAE performance evaluation technique was employed.
Table 4.1 shows IAE values for the control strategies performance evaluation. PID
error recorded was 3.099 representing 95.42% hysteresis reduction while error for
Inverse Multiplicative technique was 1.478

16

Hysteresis minimization by PID

14

12
Displacement (um)

10

-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Voltage (V)

Figure 4.2 Hysteresis minimization result based on optimized PID controller

 100

16

Minimization by inverse by multiplication

14

12

10

Displacement (um) 8

-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Voltage (V)

Figure 4.3 Hysteresis minimization result based on Inverse Multiplicative technique

Table 4.1: Control strategies performance evaluations based on IAE

Minimization Error Residual Degree of
Technique (IAE) Hysteresis (%) Hysteresis
Reduced
None 67.7300 100 0%
Optimized PID 3.0990 4.5756 95.4244
Inverse 1.4780 2.1822 97.8178
Multiplicative

representing 97.82% level of hysteresis minimization. The trajectories for error

tracking using PID and Inverse Multiplicative technique are shown in Figure 4.4. It
was observed that the point of maximum tracking error is at the point of transition.
Point of transition is the point in time were the input voltages changes direction (i.e.
from rising voltage amplitude to falling amplitudes of input voltage). Based on the
results obtained, Inverse Multiplicative technique offered more hysteresis
minimization by about 97.82% in comparison to 95.42% for the case of optimized
PID control.
 101

0.1
PID Control Error
Inverse Control Error
0.05

Error Amplitude (um)

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (s)

Figure 4.4 Reference tracking errors comparison for the two control techniques

4.1.3 Residual vibration control results and discussions

Vibration suppression control strategies have been investigated earlier under

section 3.4.2. LQR has been investigated in subsection 3.4.2.1, ZV input shaping in
section 3.4.2.2, pole placement technique in section 3.4.2.3 and PID technique in
section 3.4.2.4. The PID, LQR and pole placement control techniques responses are
shown in Figure 4.5. The red broken line in Figure 4.5 is the reference input signal.
In the open loop form (Figure 3.20), when the reference signal is applied, the PEA
tries to follow the command signal. However, the actuator tip oscillates before
reaching steady state. This similar vibration phenomenon was also observed from
vibrating FEA model step response shown in Figure 3.34. In Figure 4.5 the various
control strategies have tracking capabilities and vibration suppression capabilities.
However, for the case of ZV input shaper (being an open loop technique) it offers
vibration suppression but has poor trajectory tracking as shown in Figure 4.6. For the
 102

purpose of clarity, we have chosen to plot the ZV input shaper response separately
(since the vertical axis scale are very distinct).

Amplitude (um)

Time (sec)

Figure 4.5 LQR, PID and pole placement responses

 103

Amplitude (um)

Time (sec)

Figure 4.6 ZV input shaper response

Table 4.2: Control systems performance evaluation for residual vibration
minimization based on IAE
Minimization Error Reduction
Technique (IAE) (%)
ZV shaper 0.0072 99.9600
PID 0.1687 99.1800
LQR 0.3864 98.1100
Pole Placement 0.6615 96.7700

Table 4.2 showed performances evaluation comparison for the various

control schemes for residual vibration suppression. IAE values for ZV input shaper,
PID, LQR and pole placement control are 0.0072, 0.1687, 0.3864 and 0.6615
respectively, corresponding to 99.96%, 99.18%, 98.11% and 96.77% vibration
suppression respectively. Based on this results, ZV input shaper offered more
vibration suppression with 99.9% residual vibration removal.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Due to advantages of PEA like small size, low cost, low power consumption,
ultra-high resolution, larger generated force etc, they are applied in precise
positioning applications, in general micro/nano positioning/manipulation
applications, in medical engineering applications etc. However, major setbacks for
piezoelectric actuators are hysteresis nonlinearity and residual vibration. These can
result in large positioning inaccuracies and may affect the system's stability. For
these reasons, control engineers investigate hysteresis and residual vibration
minimization techniques. In this work, literature review work on PEA modelling
techniques, hysteresis modelling techniques and hysteresis and vibration control
techniques has been conducted. Experimental processes were conducted in the
laboratory for the purpose of transient data collection, by subjecting the PEA system
to different input signals waveforms and frequencies. Image processing techniques
were used to process data acquired based on experiments to measure actuator's
displacement based by means of Euclidean distance measure from a reference point.
From the input and output data collected from experiments and FEA process, transfer
function models were developed and validity of the models were investigated.
Transient data showed that the actuator displacement was hysteretic in nature. To
develop the hysteresis model, Bouc-Wen model was used where Nelder Mead
simplex search algorithm was used for identifying optimum Bouc-Wen model
 105

parameters. Hysteresis control strategies were investigated. Based on IAE results,

Inverse Multiplicative technique offered better hysteresis minimization when
compared to optimized PID control. Similarly, residual vibration suppression was
conducted based on LQR, PID, pole placement and ZV input shaper techniques. IAE
results showed that ZV input shaper performance was more satisfactory.

5.2 Recommendations for future work

In order to extend this research work the following suggestion can contribute
in making the research work better. These include:

 In order to improve the accuracy and resolution of the transient input

and output data, data acquisition systems should be used.

 More hysteresis and vibration compensation techniques should be

investigated. For example, combining feedback and feedforward
techniques together the control strategy may be more robust than the
two techniques employed separately.

 To further improve the research work, the various control strategies

proposed in this work should be tested on the physical PEA system.
By doing this, simulated control systems responses can be compared
with the implemented control systems responses on the physical
system.
 REFERENCES

[1] K. Uchino, ‘‘Introduction to Piezoelectric Actuators and Transducers,’’ Kenji

Uchino International Center for Actuators and Transducers, Penn State
University, 2003.

[2] A. L. Kholkin, N. A. Pertsev, and A. V Goltsev, ‘‘Piezoelectricity and crystal

symmetry,’’ in Piezoelectric and Acoustic Materials for Transducer
Applications, Aveiro, Portugal, 2008, pp. 17–38.

[3] M. Staworko and T. Uhl, ‘‘Modeling and Simulation of Piezoelectric

Elements Comparison of Available Methods and Tools,’’ Mechanics, vol. 27,
no. 4, pp. 161–171, 2008.

[4] Y. Bernard, J. Christen, C. Hernandez, and A. Razek, ‘‘From Piezoelectric

Actuator to Piezomotor,’’ Piers online, vol. 7, pp. 416–420, 2011.

[5] R. K. Lenzen, ‘‘Development of optimized piezoelectric bending actuators for

use in an insect sized flappingwing micro air vehicle,’’ Msc. thesis, Dept.
Aeronaut. Astronaut., Air Force Inst. of Technol., Ohio, USA, 2013.

[6] N. Miri and M. Mohammadzaheri, ‘‘A comparative study of different physics-

based approaches to modelling of piezoelectric actuators,’’ 2013 IEEE/ASME
Int. Conf. Adv. Intell. Mechatronics, 2013, pp. 1211–1216.

[7] PI Ceramic (2012). Piezoelectric Actuators., pp. 1–20. [Online]. Available:

http://physikclub.de/intern/intern/material-und-infos-zu-einzelnen-
projekten/piezos/Piezoelectric%20Actuators.pdf

[8] C. Y. Lin, ‘‘Material Characterization and modeling for piezoelectric

actuation and power generation under high electromechanical driving levels,’’
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Aeronaut. Astronaut., Massachusetts Inst. of
Technol., Cambridge, MA, 2002.

[9] J. P. Lien, A. York, T. Fang, and G. D. Buckner, ‘‘Modeling piezoelectric

actuators with Hysteretic Recurrent Neural Networks,’’ Sensors Actuators, A
Phys., vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 516–525, 2010.

[10] Z. Chi and Q. Xu, ‘Recent Advances in the Control of Piezoelectric

Actuators,’’ Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 11, no. 11, 2014.
 107

[11] M. Yang, G. Gu, and L. Zhu, ‘‘Parameter identification of the generalized

Prandtl–Ishlinskii model for piezoelectric actuators using modified particle
swarm optimization,’’ Sensors Actuators A Phys., vol. 189, pp. 254–265,
2013.

[12] R. Svečko and D. Kusić, ‘‘Feedforward neural network position control of a

piezoelectric actuator based on a BAT search algorithm,’’ Expert Syst.
Applicat., vol. 42, no. 13, pp. 5416–5423, 2015.

[13] M. Rakotondrabe, K. Rabenorosoa, J. Agnus, and N. Chaillet, “Robust

feedforward-feedback control of a nonlinear and oscillating 2-DOF
piezocantilever,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 506–519,
July 2011.

[14] Y. Li and Q. Xu, “Adaptive sliding mode control with perturbation estimation
and PID sliding surface for motion tracking of a piezo-driven
micromanipulator,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
798–810, July 2010.

[15] J. Liang, H. Chen, and L. Lin, “Model-Based Control for Piezoelectric-

Actuated Systems Using Inverse Prandtl-Ishlinskii Model and Particle Swarm
Optimization,” Int. J. Mech. Aerosp, Ind. Mechatron. Manuf. Eng., vol. 8, no.
3, pp. 613–618, 2014.

[16] M. Špiller and Z. Hurák, “Hybrid charge control for stick–slip piezoelectric
actuators,” Mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 2011.

[17] M. H. Rahman, A. H. M. Sulaiman, M. R. Ahmad, and T. Fukuda, “Finite

Element Analysis of Single Cell Wall Cutting by Piezoelectric-actuated
Vibrating Rigid Nanoneedle,” IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol., vol. 12, no. 6, pp.
1–9, Nov. 2013.

[18] I. Obataya, C. Nakamura, S. Han, N. Nakamura, and J. Miyake, “Nanoscale

operation of a living cell using an atomic force microscope with a
nanoneedle,” Nano Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 27–30, 2005.

[19] Z. Lu, X. Zhang, C. Leung, N. Esfandiari, R. F. Casper, and Y. Sun, “Robotic

ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection),” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 58,
no. 7, pp. 2102–2108, July 2011.

[20] T. H. Saleh, “Active Vibration Control of a Smart Beam Using LQR , PID and
Fuzzy Logic Controllers,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng., University of
Basrah, Iraq, 2014.
 108

[21] J. Enyu, Z. Xiaojin, G. Zhiyuan, and Q. Xiaoping, “Simulation And Research

Of Active Structural Vibration Control Based On Optimal Control,” Amer. J.
Eng. Technol. Res., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2015.

[22] S. K. Vashist and D. Chhabra, “Optimal placement of piezoelectric actuators

on plate structures for active vibration control using genetic algorithm,” Int. J.
Mech. Aerosp., Ind. Mechatronics Eng., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 165–170, 2013.

[23] L. Gao, Q. Lu, F. Fei, L. Liu, Y. Liu, and J. Leng, “Active vibration control
based on piezoelectric smart composite,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 22, no. 12,
pp. 1-12, 2013.

[24] J. Peng and X. Chen, “A Survey of Modeling and Control of Piezoelectric

Actuators,” Mod. Mech. Eng., vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 1–20, 2013.

[25] M.-J. Yang, C.-X. Li, G.-Y. Gu, and L.-M. Zhu, “A Modified Prandtl-
Ishlinskii Model for Rate-dependent Hysteresis Nonlinearity Using mth-power
Velocity Damping Mechanism,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 11, no. 163, pp.
1–10, 2014.

[26] R. Morjan and S. Prasalovich, ‘‘EM4 : Magnetic Hysteresis,’’ Lab manual,

Chalmers Univ. Technol., Gäoteborg, 2003, pp. 1–12.

[27] J. Peng and X. Chen, ‘‘A Survey of Modeling and Control of Piezoelectric
Actuators,’’ Mod. Mech. Eng., vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 1–20, 2013.

[28] L. Deng and Y. Tan, ‘‘Modeling hysteresis in piezoelectric actuators using

NARMAX models,’’ Sensors Actuators, A Phys., vol. 149, no. 1, pp. 106–112,
2009.

[29] W. Li and X. Chen, ‘‘Compensation of hysteresis in piezoelectric actuators

without dynamics modeling,’’ Sensors Actuators, A Phys., vol. 199, pp. 89–
97, 2013.

[30] S. Dwivedy, ‘‘Introduction to vibration and stability analysis of mechanical

systems,’’ Mechnical Vibration Lecture Notes, Indian Inst. of Tech.,
Guwahati, 781 039, India.

[31] H. Q. Jerry, ‘‘Finite Element Analysis,’’ Lecture notes fall 2006, University of
Colorado Boulder, CO, USA, 2006.

[32] X. F. Wu, Y. J. Lei, D. K. Li, and Y. Xie, ‘‘Transfer function modeling of

structural vibration of complex aerospace structures based on finite element
analysis,’’ J. Mech. Sci. Technol., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1245–1253, May 2013.
 109

[33] M. Motamedi, S. M. Rezaei, M. Zareinejad, and M. Saadat, ‘‘Robust control

of a piezoelectric stage under thermal and external load disturbances,’’ in
2009 Amer. Control Conf., 2009, pp. 2260–2265.

[34] L. Y. T. and G. P. S. Clinton Y.K. Chee, ‘‘A Review on the Modelling of

Piezoelectric Sensors and Actuators Incorporated in Intelligent Structures,’’ J.
Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 928–940, 2006.

[35] J. Latalsky, ‘‘Modelling of Macro fiber composite piezoelectric active

elements in ABAQUS system,’’ Maint. Reliab., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 72–78, 2011.

[36] B. J. Sung, E. W. Lee, J. G. Lee, ‘‘Dynamic modeling and displacement

control of the piezoelectric actuator,’’ in 2007 Int. Conf. Elect. Mach. Syst.
(ICEMS), 2007, pp. 1902–1907.

[37] An American National Standard/IEEE Standard on Piezoelectricity,

ANSI/IEEE Std 176–1987, 1988.

[38] J. Sirohi and I. Chopra, ‘‘Fundamental Understanding of Piezoelectric Strain

Sensors,’’ J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 246–257, 2000.

[39] V. Piefort, ‘‘Finite Element Modelling of Piezoelectric Active Structures,’’

Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng. Robot., Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles,
Brussels, Belgium, 2001.

[40] X. Jiang, P. W. Rehrig, W. S. Hackenberger, E. Smith, S. Dong, D. Viehland,

J. Moore, Jr., and B. Patrick, ‘‘Advanced piezoelectric Single Crystal Based
Actuators,’’ in Proc. of SPIE, 2005, vol. 5761, no. 2, pp. 253–262.

[41] J. Pritchard, C. R. Bowen, and F. Lowrie, ‘‘Multilayer actuators: Review,’’

Br. Ceram. Trans., vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 265–273, 2001.

[42] Z. Lašová and R. Zemčík, ‘‘Comparison of finite element models for

piezoelectric materials,’’ Procedia Eng., vol. 48, pp. 375–380, 2012.

[43] V. Piefort and A. Preumont, ‘‘Finite element modeling of piezoelectric

structures,’’ in Samtech User’s Conf., 2001, pp. 1–17.

[44] M. H. Rahman, A. H. M. Sulaiman, M. R. Ahmad, and T. Fukuda, ‘‘Finite

Element Analysis of Single Cell Wall Cutting by Piezoelectric-actuated
Vibrating Rigid Nanoneedle,’’ IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol., vol. 12, no. 6, pp.
1–9, 2013.

[45] K. V. Rao, S. Raja, and T. M. Gowda, ‘‘Finite element modelling and

vibration control study of active plate with debonded piezoelectric actuators,’’
 110

in Third Asian Conference on Mechanics of Functional Materials and

Structures, 2012, pp. 923–2942.

[46] D. Habineza, M. Rakotondrabe, and Y. Le Gorrec, “Modeling, identification

and feedforward control of multivariable hysteresis by combining Bouc-Wen
equations and the inverse multiplicative structure,” in 2014 Amer. Control
Conf., 2014, pp. 4771–4777.

[47] D. Habineza, M. Rakotondrabe, and Y. Le Gorrec, “Bouc-Wen Modeling and

Feedforward Control of Multivariable Hysteresis in Piezoelectric Systems:
Application to a 3-DoF Piezotube Scanner,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1797–1806, Sept. 2015.

[48] A. E. Charalampakis and V. K. Koumousis, “Identification of Bouc–Wen

hysteretic systems by a hybrid evolutionary algorithm,” J. Sound Vib., vol.
314, no. 3, pp. 571–585, 2008.

[49] G. O. García, “Identification of hysteretic structural systems using multi-

objective optimization algorithms,” M.Eng. thesis, Dept. Electron. Eng. and
Comput., Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2013.

[50] A. E. Charalampakis and C. K. Dimou, “Identification of Bouc–Wen

hysteretic systems using particle swarm optimization,” Comput. Struct., vol.
88, no. 21–22, pp. 1197–1205, 2010.

[51] C. X. Cai, X. D. Liu, N. Dong, and H. J. Li, “Bouc-Wen Model Parameter

Identification for Piezoelectric Actuator Using Chaos Particle Swarm
Optimization,” in Key Engineering Matrials, vol. 562–565, pp. 516–521,
2013.

[52] A E. Charalampakis and V. K. Koumousis, “Parameter Estimation of Bouc-

Wen Hysteretic Systems Using a Sawtooth Genetic Algorithm,” in 8th Int.
Conf. Computational Struct. Technol., 2006, pp. 1–14.

[53] M. Zhou and J. Wang, “Research on hysteresis of piezoceramic actuator based

on the Duhem model,” Sci. World J., vol. 2013, pp. 1-6, 2013.

[54] Z. Chi, M. Jia, and Q. Xu, “Fuzzy PID Feedback Control of Piezoelectric
Actuator with Feedforward Compensation,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2014, pp.
1-14, 2014.

[55] Y. Xiao, Shunli and Li, “Modeling and High Dynamic Compensating the
Rate-Dependent Hysteresis of Piezoelectric Actuators via a Novel Modified
Inverse Preisach Model,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 21, no. 5,
pp. 1549–1557, 2013.
 111

[56] L. Riccardi, D. Naso, B. Turchiano, and J. and D. K. P. Janocha, Hartmut, “On

PID control of dynamic systems with hysteresis using a Prandtl-Ishlinskii
model,” 2012 Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2012, pp. 1670–1675.

[57] M. Yang, G. Gu, and L. Zhu, “Parameter identification of the generalized

Prandtl–Ishlinskii model for piezoelectric actuators using modified particle
swarm optimization,” Sensors Actuators A Phys., vol. 189, pp. 254–265, 2013.

[58] Y. Liu, J. Shan, U. Gabbert, and N. Qi, “Hysteresis and creep modeling and
compensation for a piezoelectric actuator using a fractional-order Maxwell
resistive capacitor approach,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1-12,
2013.

[59] N. Miri, M. Mohammadzaheri, L. Chen, S. Grainger, and M. Bazghaleh,

“Physics-based modelling of a piezoelectric actuator using genetic algorithm,”
in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Ind. Electron. Applicat., 2013, pp. 16–20.

[60] S. Rosenbaum, M. Ruderman, T. Ströhla, and T. Bertram, “Use of Jiles-

Atherton and preisach hysteresis models for inverse feed-forward control,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 3984–3989, 2010.

[61] B. Vaseghi, D. Mathekga, S. Rahman, and A. Knight, “Parameter

Optimization and Study of Inverse J-A Hysteresis Model,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1637–1640, 2013.

[62] J. Zhang, E. Merced, N. Sepúlveda, and X. Tan, “Optimal compression of

generalized Prandtl–Ishlinskii hysteresis models,” Automatica, vol. 57, pp.
170–179, 2015.

[63] V. Hassani, T. Tjahjowidodo, and T. N. Do, “A survey on hysteresis

modeling, identification and control,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 49, no.
1–2, pp. 209–233, 2014.

[64] N. Miri, M. Mohammadzaheri, L. Chen, S. Grainger, and M. Bazghaleh,

“Physics-based modelling of a piezoelectric actuator using genetic algorithm,”
in 2013 IEEE Symp. Ind. Electron. Applica., 2013, pp. 16–20.

[65] Y. Iskandarani, H. R. Karimi, and M. R. Hansen, “An Iterative Based

Approach for Hysteresis Parameters Estimation in Magnetorheological
Dampers,” in Intelligent Syst. (IS), 2012 6th IEEE Int.l Conf., 2012, pp. 439–
444.

[66] S. Talatahari, H. Mohaggeg, K. Najafi, and A. Manafzadeh, “Solving

Parameter Identification of Nonlinear Problems by Artificial Bee Colony
Algorithm,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2014, no. 1, 2014.
 112

[67] R. Svečko and D. Kusić, “Feedforward neural network position control of a

piezoelectric actuator based on a BAT search algorithm,” Expert Syst. Appl.,
vol. 42, no. 13, pp. 5416–5423, 2015.

[68] S. K. S. Fan and E. Zahara, “A hybrid simplex search and particle swarm
optimization for unconstrained optimization,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 181, no.
2, pp. 527–548, 2007.

[69] B. Jayawardhana, H. Logemann, and E. P. Ryan, “PID control of second-order

systems with hysteresis,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Control, 2007, pp.
4626–4630.

[70] S. Xiao and Y. Li, “Dynamic compensation and control for piezoelectric
actuators based on the inverse Bouc–Wen model,” Robot. Comput. Integr.
Manuf., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 47–54, 2014.

[71] M. Rakotondrabe, “Bouc-Wen Modeling and Inverse Multiplicative Structure

to Compensate Hysteresis Nonlinearity in Piezoelectric Actuators,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 428–431, 2011.

[72] Y. Li, Z. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Hysteresis Modeling of Piezoelectric Actuators and
Feed-Forward Compensation Algorithm Research,” Int. J. Control Autom.,
vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 405–416, 2015.

[73] C. Kang and J. Kwak, “Robustness Improvement by Convolving Two ZV

Input Shapers,” in 11th International Conference on Control, Automation and
Systems, 2011, pp. 730–733.

[74] X. Zhang, K. Rall, and W. Papiernik, “Modified input shaping for circular
trajectory following,” In Proc. 7th WSEAS Int. Conf. Autom. Control,
Modeling Simul, 2005, pp. 271-276.

[75] Z. Mohamed and M. A. Ahmad, “Hybrid Input Shaping and Feedback Control
Schemes of a Flexible Robot Manipulator,” in Proceedings of the 17th World
Congress The International Federation of Automatic Control, 2008, pp. 6-11.

[76] H. Jiang, H. Ji, J. Qiu, and Y. Chen, “A modified prandtl-ishlinskii model for
modeling asymmetric hysteresis of piezoelectric actuators,” IEEE Trans.
Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1200–1210, 2010.

[77] Multilayer Piezoelectric Actuators, NEC TOKIN Corporation, 2015.

[78] Q. Xiong and A. Jutan, “Continuous optimization using a dynamic simplex

method,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 58, no. 16, pp. 3817–3828, 2003.
 113

[79] J. Paulusová and M. Dúbravská. (2013, July 20th). Application of design of

PID controller for continuous systems [Online]. Available:
http://www2.humusoft.cz/www/papers/matlab12/060_paulusova.pdf.

[80] C. Knospe, “PID control,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., pp. 30–31, 2006.

[81] G. K. Mcmillan, “Industrial Applications of PID Control,” in PID Control in

the third Millennium: Lessons Learned and New Approaches, 2012, ch.4,
pp.1-53.

[82] B. Nagaraj and N. Murugananth, “A comparative study of PID controller

tuning using GA, EP, PSO and ACO,” in 2010 IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun.
Control Comput. Technol. (ICCCCT), 2010, pp. 305–313.

[83] D. Habineza, M. Rakotondrabe, and Y. Le Gorrec, “Modeling, identification

and feedforward control of multivariable hysteresis by combining Bouc-Wen
equations and the inverse multiplicative structure,” in 2014 Amer. Control
Conf., 2014, pp. 4771–4777.

[84] Quanser Inc., “Optimal lqr control,” Student workbook, Markham, Ontario,
Canada, 2014.

[85] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering 5th ed. New Jersy: Prentice Hall,
2010.
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

List of Publications

Journal Publication Authors

1. Piezoelectric Actuator IEEE Transactions on 1. *Muhammad Auwal

Hysteresis Modelling and Control Systems Shehu,

Control Using Optimized Technology -Submitted 2. Mohd Ridzuan Ahmad

PID and Inverse manuscript 3. Auwal Shehu
Multiplicative Technique

2. Finite Element Analysis IEEE Transactions on 1. Auwal Shehu

of Single Cell Stiffness Nanotechnology - 2. Mohd Ridzuan Ahmad
Measurement Using PZT- Submitted manuscript
3. *Muhammad Auwal
Integrated Buckling Shehu
Nanoneedle

Conferences Publication Authors

1. LQR, Double-PID and In proceedings of the 5th 1. *Muhammad Auwal

Pole Placement ICCSCE 2015, pp. 230- Shehu,

Stabilization and Tracking 235, 26th-29th 2. Mohd Ridzuan Ahmad,

Control of Single Link November, Penang 3. Auwal Shehu Tijjani,
Inverted Pendulum Malaysia 4. Ahmad Alhassan

2. Comparing the In proceedings of the 9th 1. Ahmad Alhassan,

Performance of Sway Asia Modelling 2. Kumeresan A.
 115

Control Using ZV Input Symposium 2015 (AMS Danapalasingam,

Shaper and LQR on 2015), pp. 61-66 3. *Muhammad Auwal

Gantry Cranes Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Shehu,

4. Auwalu M. Abdullahi,
5. Auwal Shehu
 116

APPENDIX B

Combined LQR, PID and pole placement vibration control simulation model
 117

APPENDIX-C

C programming code for squarewave signal generation using Arduino MCU

void main() {

#define SignalPin 7;

int delayMs=500;
void setup() {
// One time configuration settings
pinMode(SignalPin,OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
digitalWrite(SignalPin,LOW);
delay(delayMs);
digitalWrite(SignalPin,HIGH);
delay(delayMs);
}

}
 118

APPENDIX-D

Table ‎0.1: Finite element model input and output data for transfer function
modelling using system identification technique.
Displacement
S/N Voltage (V) Displacement (m) S/N Voltage (V) (m)
1 0 0 22 78.75 2.27707E-07
2 3.75 1.08432E-08 23 82.50 2.38551E-07
3 7.500 2.16864E-08 24 86.25 2.49394E-07
4 11.25 3.25296E-08 25 90.00 2.60237E-07
5 15.00 4.33728E-08 26 93.75 2.7108E-07
6 18.75 5.4216E-08 27 97.50 2.81923E-07
7 22.50 6.50592E-08 28 101.25 2.92767E-07
8 26.25 7.59024E-08 29 105.00 3.0361E-07
9 30.00 8.67456E-08 30 108.75 3.14453E-07
10 33.75 9.75888E-08 31 112.50 3.25296E-07
11 37.50 1.08432E-07 32 116.25 3.36139E-07
12 41.25 1.19275E-07 33 120.00 3.46983E-07
13 45.00 1.30118E-07 34 123.75 3.57826E-07
14 48.75 1.40962E-07 35 127.50 3.68669E-07
15 52.50 1.51805E-07 36 131.25 3.79512E-07
16 56.25 1.62648E-07 37 135.00 3.90356E-07
17 60.00 1.73491E-07 38 138.75 4.01199E-07
18 63.75 1.84334E-07 39 142.50 4.12042E-07
19 67.50 1.95178E-07 40 146.25 4.22885E-07
20 71.25 2.06021E-07 41 150.00 4.33728E-07
21 75.00 2.16864E-07
 119

APPENDIX E

Vibration Model Input and Output experimental Data

Reading -1
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement
S/N (V) (um) S/N (V) (um)
1 0.063 0.000 41 0.063 0.000
2 0.063 0.000 42 0.063 0.000
3 63.050 6.543 43 63.050 6.666
4 63.050 6.543 44 63.050 6.666
5 0.063 0.000 45 0.063 0.123
6 0.063 0.000 46 0.063 0.123
7 63.050 6.543 47 63.050 6.543
8 63.050 6.543 48 63.050 6.543
9 0.063 0.000 49 0.063 0.123
10 0.063 0.000 50 0.063 0.123
11 63.050 6.666 51 63.050 6.666
12 63.050 6.666 52 63.050 6.666
13 0.063 0.123 53 0.063 0.000
14 0.063 0.123 54 0.063 0.000
15 63.050 6.543 55 63.050 6.666
16 63.050 6.543 56 63.050 6.666
17 0.063 0.000 57 0.063 0.123
18 0.063 0.000 58 0.063 0.123
19 63.050 6.420 59 63.050 6.666
20 63.050 6.420 60 63.050 6.666
21 0.063 0.000 61 0.063 0.123
22 0.063 0.000 62 0.063 0.123
23 63.050 6.543 63 63.050 6.666
24 63.050 6.543 64 63.050 6.666
25 0.063 0.000 65 0.063 0.000
 120

26 0.063 0.000 66 0.063 0.000

27 63.050 6.666 67 63.050 6.543
28 63.050 6.666 68 63.050 6.543
29 0.063 0.000 69 0.063 0.000
30 0.063 0.000 70 0.063 0.000
31 63.050 6.543 71 63.050 6.666
32 63.050 6.543 72 63.050 6.666
33 0.063 0.000 73 0.063 0.123
34 0.063 0.000 74 0.063 0.123
35 63.050 6.543 75 63.050 6.666
36 63.050 6.543 76 63.050 6.666
37 0.063 0.000 77 0.063 0.123
38 0.063 0.000 78 0.063 0.123
39 63.050 6.666 79 63.050 6.666
40 63.050 6.666 80 63.050 6.666

Reading-2
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement
S/N (V) (um) S/N (V) (um)
81 0.063 0.000 121 0.063 0.000
82 0.063 0.000 122 0.063 0.000
83 63.050 6.790 123 63.050 6.543
84 63.050 6.790 124 63.050 6.543
85 0.063 0.123 125 0.063 0.000
86 0.063 0.123 126 0.063 0.000
87 63.050 6.666 127 63.050 6.666
88 63.050 6.666 128 63.050 6.666
89 0.063 0.123 129 0.063 0.123
90 0.063 0.123 130 0.063 0.123
91 63.050 6.666 131 63.050 6.666
92 63.050 6.666 132 63.050 6.666
93 0.063 0.123 133 0.063 0.123
94 0.063 0.123 134 0.063 0.123
95 63.050 6.790 135 63.050 6.666
96 63.050 6.790 136 63.050 6.666
97 0.063 0.123 137 0.063 0.000
98 0.063 0.123 138 0.063 0.000
99 63.050 6.666 139 63.050 6.666
100 63.050 6.666 140 63.050 6.666
 121

101 0.063 0.123 141 0.063 0.123

102 0.063 0.123 142 0.063 0.123
103 63.05 6.666 143 63.05 6.666
104 63.050 6.666 144 63.050 6.666
105 0.063 0.123 145 0.063 0.247
106 0.063 0.123 146 0.063 0.247
107 63.050 6.666 147 63.050 6.666
108 63.050 6.666 148 63.050 6.666
109 0.063 0.123 149 0.063 0.123
110 0.063 0.123 150 0.063 0.123
111 63.050 6.666 151 63.050 6.666
112 63.050 6.666 152 63.050 6.666
113 0.063 0.123 153 0.063 0.123
114 0.063 0.123 154 0.063 0.123
115 63.050 6.666 155 63.050 6.620
116 63.050 6.666 156 63.050 6.620
117 0.063 0.247 157 0.063 0.000
118 0.063 0.247 158 0.063 0.000
119 63.050 6.666 159 63.050 6.464
120 63.050 6.666 160 63.050 6.464

Reading-3
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement
S/N (V) (um) S/N (V) (um)
161 0.063 0.123 201 0.063 0.247
162 0.063 0.123 202 0.063 0.247
163 63.050 6.790 203 63.050 6.790
164 63.050 6.790 204 63.050 6.790
165 0.063 0.123 205 0.063 0.247
166 0.063 0.123 206 0.063 0.247
167 63.050 6.666 207 63.050 6.666
168 63.050 6.666 208 63.050 6.666
169 0.063 0.000 209 0.063 0.123
170 0.063 0.000 210 0.063 0.123
171 63.050 6.790 211 63.050 6.790
172 63.050 6.790 212 63.050 6.79
173 0.063 0.247 213 0.063 0.247
174 0.063 0.247 214 0.063 0.247
175 63.050 6.666 215 63.050 6.790
 122

176 63.050 6.666 216 63.050 6.790

177 0.063 0.123 217 0.063 0.123
178 0.063 0.123 218 0.063 0.123
179 63.05 6.666 219 63.050 6.790
180 63.050 6.666 220 63.050 6.790
181 0.063 0.123 221 0.063 0.123
182 0.063 0.123 222 0.063 0.123
183 63.050 6.666 223 63.050 6.790
184 63.050 6.666 224 63.050 6.790
185 0.063 0.247 225 0.063 0.123
186 0.063 0.247 226 0.063 0.123
187 63.050 6.666 227 63.050 6.666
188 63.050 6.666 228 63.050 6.666
189 0.063 0.123 229 0.063 0.247
190 0.063 0.123 230 0.063 0.247
191 63.050 6.666 231 63.050 6.790
192 63.050 6.666 232 63.050 6.790
193 0.063 0.247 233 0.063 0.247
194 0.063 0.247 234 0.063 0.247
195 63.050 6.790 235 63.050 6.790
196 63.050 6.790 236 63.050 6.790
197 0.063 0.000 237 0.063 0.247
198 0.063 0.000 238 0.063 0.247
199 63.050 6.790 239 63.050 6.666
200 63.050 6.790 240 63.050 6.666

Reading-4
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement
S/N (V) (um) S/N (V) (um)
241 0.063 0.247 281 0.063 0.247
242 0.063 0.247 282 0.063 0.247
243 63.050 6.666 283 63.050 6.790
244 63.050 6.666 284 63.050 6.790
245 0.063 0.123 285 0.063 0.247
246 0.063 0.123 286 0.063 0.247
247 63.050 6.790 287 63.050 6.790
248 63.050 6.790 288 63.050 6.790
249 0.063 0.123 289 0.063 0.247
250 0.063 0.123 290 0.063 0.247
 123

251 63.050 6.666 291 63.050 6.790

252 63.050 6.666 292 63.050 6.790
253 0.063 0.123 293 0.063 0.247
254 0.063 0.123 294 0.063 0.247
255 63.050 6.666 295 63.050 6.790
256 63.050 6.666 296 63.050 6.790
257 0.063 0.123 297 0.063 0.370
258 0.063 0.123 298 0.063 0.370
259 63.050 6.666 299 63.050 6.790
260 63.050 6.666 300 63.050 6.790
261 0.063 0.247 301 0.063 0.171
262 0.063 0.247 302 0.063 0.171
263 63.050 6.790 303 63.050 6.727
264 63.050 6.79 304 63.050 6.727
265 0.063 0.123 305 0.063 0.171
266 0.063 0.123 306 0.063 0.171
267 63.050 6.666 307 63.050 6.900
268 63.050 6.666 308 63.050 6.900
269 0.063 0.247 309 0.063 0.344
270 0.063 0.247 310 0.063 0.344
271 63.050 6.790 311 63.050 6.727
272 63.050 6.790 312 63.050 6.727
273 0.063 0.247 313 0.063 0.344
274 0.063 0.247 314 0.063 0.344
275 63.050 6.790 315 63.050 6.900
276 63.050 6.790 316 63.050 6.900
277 0.063 0.247 317 0.063 0.344
278 0.063 0.247 318 0.063 0.344
279 63.050 6.790 319 63.050 6.727
280 63.050 6.790 320 63.050 6.727

Reading-5
Voltage Displacement Voltage Displacement
S/N (V) (um) S/N (V) (um)
321 0.063 0.171 361 0.063 0.344
322 0.063 0.171 362 0.063 0.344
323 63.050 6.900 363 63.050 6.900
324 63.050 6.900 364 63.050 6.900
325 0.063 0.344 365 0.063 0.344
 124

326 0.063 0.344 366 0.063 0.344

327 63.050 6.900 367 63.050 7.072
328 63.050 6.900 368 63.050 7.072
329 0.063 0.344 369 0.063 0.516
330 0.063 0.344 370 0.063 0.516
331 63.050 6.727 371 63.050 7.072
332 63.050 6.727 372 63.050 7.072
333 0.063 0.344 373 0.063 0.516
334 0.063 0.344 374 0.063 0.516
335 63.050 6.900 375 63.050 6.900
336 63.050 6.900 376 63.050 6.900
337 0.063 0.344 377 0.063 0.344
338 0.063 0.344 378 0.063 0.344
339 63.050 6.900 379 63.050 7.072
340 63.050 6.900 380 63.050 7.072
341 0.063 0.344 381 0.063 0.344
342 0.063 0.344 382 0.063 0.344
343 63.050 6.900 383 63.050 6.900
344 63.050 6.900 384 63.050 6.900
345 0.063 0.344 385 0.063 0.344
346 0.063 0.344 386 0.063 0.344
347 63.050 6.900 387 63.050 6.900
348 63.050 6.900 388 63.050 6.900
349 0.063 0.344 389 0.063 0.516
350 0.063 0.344 390 0.063 0.516
351 63.050 6.727 391 63.050 7.072
352 63.050 6.727 392 63.050 7.072
353 0.063 0.344 393 0.063 0.344
354 0.063 0.344 394 0.063 0.344
355 63.050 6.900 395 63.050 7.072
356 63.050 6.900 396 63.050 7.072
357 0.063 0.344 397 0.063 0.344
358 0.063 0.344 398 0.063 0.344
359 63.050 6.900 399 63.050 6.900
360 63.050 6.900 400 63.050 6.900